American politics

Gun control

The gun control that works: no guns

I HESITATE to offer thoughts about the school shooting in Connecticut that has seen 20 children and seven adults murdered and the gunman also dead. Your correspondent has been in the rural Midwest researching a column and heard the news on the car radio. Along with a sense of gloom, I found I mostly wanted to see my own, elementary-school-age children back home in Washington, DC, and had little desire to listen to pundits of any stripe: hence my reluctance to weigh in now.

To be fair, on NPR, the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne had sensible things to say about President Barack Obama’s statement on the killings, and how it was probably significant when the president seemed to suggest that he was minded to take action on gun control, and never mind the politics. On the same show the moderate conservative columnist, David Brooks, expressed sensible caution about assuming that stricter gun controls could have stopped this particular shooting.

Switching to red-blooded conservative talk radio, I found two hosts offering a “move along, nothing to see here” defence of the status quo. One suggested that listeners should not torment themselves trying to understand “craziness”, though it would, the pair agreed, be understandable if some parents were tempted to remove their children from public education and homeschool them.

To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.

Here is my small thought. It is quite possible, perhaps probable, that stricter gun laws of the sort that Mr Obama may or may not be planning, would not have stopped the horrible killings of this morning. But that is a separate question from whether it is a good idea to allow private individuals to own guns. And that, really, is what I think I understand by gun control. Once you have guns in circulation, in significant numbers, I suspect that specific controls on things like automatic weapons or large magazines can have only marginal effects. Once lots of other people have guns, it becomes rational for you to want your own too.

The first time that I was posted to Washington, DC some years ago, the capital and suburbs endured a frightening few days at the hands of a pair of snipers, who took to killing people at random from a shooting position they had established in the boot of a car. I remember meeting a couple of White House correspondents from American papers, and hearing one say: but the strange thing is that Maryland (where most of the killings were taking place) has really strict gun laws. And I remember thinking: from the British perspective, those aren’t strict gun laws. Strict laws involve having no guns.

After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.

Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter’s pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.

And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.

I am willing to believe that some householders, in some cases, have defended their families from attack because they have been armed. But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person. And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost none—is on balance safer.

As for the National Rifle Association bumper stickers arguing that only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny, I wonder if that isn’t a form of narcissism, involving the belief that lone, heroic individuals will have the ability to identify tyranny as it descends, recognise it for what it is, and fight back. There is also the small matter that I don’t think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule.

Nor is it the case that the British are relaxed about being subjects of a monarch, or are less fussed about freedoms. A conservative law professor was recently quoted in the papers saying he did not want to live in a country where the police were armed and the citizens not. I fear in Britain, at least, native gun-distrust goes even deeper than that: the British don’t even like their police to be armed (though more of them are than in the past).

But here is the thing. The American gun debate takes place in America, not Britain or Japan. And banning all guns is not about to happen (and good luck collecting all 300m guns currently in circulation, should such a law be passed). It would also not be democratic. I personally dislike guns. I think the private ownership of guns is a tragic mistake. But a majority of Americans disagree with me, some of them very strongly. And at a certain point, when very large majorities disagree with you, a bit of deference is in order.

So in short I am not sure that tinkering with gun control will stop horrible massacres like today’s. And I am pretty sure that the sort of gun control that would work—banning all guns—is not going to happen. So I have a feeling that even a more courageous debate than has been heard for some time, with Mr Obama proposing gun-control laws that would have been unthinkable in his first term, will not change very much at all. Hence the gloom.

This is really correct - armed police are not much good at protecting people and regularly shoot unarmed, and even innocent people, not because they mean ill but because it is hard to be right.

At the root of this is a faulty public perception, held by many even in the UK, that if the bad guy has a gun you will be safer if you have one too. I a pretty sure that studies show that this is not the case, and that an armed policeman is more, not less, likely to be hurt when facing an armed baddie. This may be based on 'obviousness' (like the lump of labour fallacy) or on too many fantastical movies. In any case we need to scotch some of these ideas - how about an 'Office for Accurate Public Perception'?

It's insane that in the US we treat gun ownership as a rights issue. It is clearly a public health and safety issue. The question should not be 'do we have the right to own a gun', but 'does the ownership of guns make for a safer society'.

Yes, I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making, it far past time to step back and decide whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost.

Thank you for your thoughtful deference. Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776. The American republic is still very much an "experiment" worth keeping an eye out for tyranny. Consider the Patriot Act. That being said, the founding fathers were quite clear that the 2nd Amendment has limitations, and rightly so. Rational change will come -- decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government. And that's as it should be.

From here in Australia we can't understand this American attraction to guns. From the outside it makes American look like a race of extremists. We understand that Americans have a constitutional right to own weapons. However this was drafted when men carried single shot blunderbuss weapons.
Charon Heston tried to mess in our domestic politics with his corrupted thinking and was shown the door.
One day an American politician will stand up to the American Rifle Association call their bluff, ban guns. Do it for the common good.
The world is sick of hollow arguments that guns do not kill people, people kill people., of course guns kill people. At last count 26 today, I do not recall mention of a knife.

You seriously think some lightly armed janitor or even a principal would be a match, or even timely enough, in killing a heavily armed, and by some accounts body-armored, assailant, who already clearly had made a suicide pact with himself and couldn't have cared less about getting shot?

And, tell me you really want to live in a world where the staff (read, the kindergarten teacher) has a gun in a holster on her hip (not in the desk, mind you... she'd never get to it in time) all-day, every-day, where toddlers not only see it but can get to it... really? And, let's carry that forward a bit, because now everyone in your world needs a gun... everyone! including your walker-using grandmother, and your kid walking to school, because they may be attacked when you're not around. But then, if everyone has a gun, now every fender-bender, or bad call at your kid's baseball game, can turn into a gunfight, because you have to have your gun in case the "other guy" might be "crazy enough" to pull his on you, so you better be prepared. Do you really want to live in that world... really?

How much more horrified do we need to be (20 little children... dead!) to realize that guns are a scourge, and those that promote their unfettered ownership are sociopaths, with superiority complexes. Admit it, most gun owners want to have their big guns, but not for anyone else to have theirs, because they want to maintain "superior firepower"... disgusting, all of them. Anyone who believes the gun-rights insanity is humanistically bankrupt and morally blind.

It is unfortunate that you live in a fantasy world to believe that there aren't people that have actual training and know how to use the firearms that they carry. Of course you wouldn't, you probably have never trained in your life, maybe never even shot a firearm. You over-exaggerate the proposed "situation" with bold ignorance calling the shooter "heavily armed" and any potential threat solution a "lightly armed". You know the shooter used pistols right? You do realize people carry those same model pistols everyday concealed, right? Of course not. You are uneducated on firearms, and that causes you to make illogical arguments because you lack the education to make those arguments. You DO realize that the assailant was not "armored". Nobody gives two shits about whether the assailant "cared" about being shot. The purpose of shooting him is to disable him to keep him from doing any more harm. Do a little logical thinking and figure it out and do the rest of us the favor.

That statement doesn't really make sense. You can own Class 3 NFA items such as a fully automatic rifles, M16A1 (for example) and NFA Registered destructive devices such as grenade launchers. Suppressors too if you fancy. Ignorance prevails I guess in today's society. Try using google sometime.

Don't forget that the mother too was armed and an avid gun collector, armed with at least two pistols and a military-esque rifle - how did that help her? did she protect the chioldren of the school, did she protect herself?...or did she provide the means for the massmurderer to commit his crimes most efficiently?

You are mischaracterizing gun owners as the scumsucking pawns of the NRA. Stop ginning up your opponents with these calls.

"And, tell me you really want to live in a world where the staff (read, the kindergarten teacher) has a gun in a holster on her hip (not in the desk, mind you... she'd never get to it in time) all-day, every-day, where toddlers not only see it but can get to it... really? And, let's carry that forward a bit, because now everyone in your world needs a gun..."

They have concealed holsters that one hides on themselves.

Furthermore, I don't know many pro-gun advocates who argue EVERYONE needs one. In fact, many people I know who actually think that's a dangerous position because if the person doesn't want a gun, that gun will be a liability because they won't practice with it.

I know many who vehemently disagree a proposed required-carry law in a Vermont county. They considered it as tyrannical as withholding the right to bear arms.

Are you going to ask why can't you own explosives yet? Oh right, there's a federal list you have to go on for the required ingredients. Individual M203 Grenades are considered destructive devices, as are most other explosives. You are checked by the federal government, you need a license, and you need to pay a $200 dollar tax per grenade.

She lived in one of the most heavily restrictive states for gun owners in the US. She worked in another restrictive state and last but not least she worked in a gun free zone where it was a federal and state felony to carry a firearm. Her son violated law after law to commit his crimes do you really think one more would have stopped him?

This is true, but if that where the only difference between USA and CHINA then your argument would be reasonable. However the people of China lack many of the rights. liberties and freedoms you take for granted. I can site many dictatorships where the crime/murder rates were minuscule compared to any modern liberal democracy. It is unarguable that living under a repressive form of government has some advantages but I rather pay the price of freedom.

Well the people of Israel did just that they placed guards in schools and armed teachers and were successful in protecting their schools from terrorist for a long time.

You say "tell me you really want to live in a world where the staff (read, the kindergarten teacher) has a gun in a holster on her hip" and I tell you that is the world we live in. Wishing it wasn't doesn't make it so. I wish there were no wars, but I hope we keep an army. Getting rid of our Army doesn't remove the threat of war. In fact you can argue it increases it.

This is not about the society we "could" have. It is about the society we have.

Someone in another comment on this thread said that "restricting access to guns was one of the first things that repressive governments do" but he missed the point.

Restricting access to guns is one of the first things that any government does, whether it's a dictatorship or not. Conversely, when governments become more open and throw off the shackles of totalitarianism, most of them don't suddenly legalize handguns.

I live in Taiwan which has mass conscription but illegal firearms. It's a free society with democracy, healthcare, the rule of law etc. etc.

Texting and driving, DUI, and drugs are a scourge. Each of these evil things alone kill more people every day in this country than guns, yet people are not outraged about that. Good, decent people break the law to text or call while driving, but the pro-gun control folks think that somehow criminals will abide by laws against guns? No, they won't. And the only deterrence that works is EQUAL FORCE. If that troubled kid thought that there was a possibility of someone meeting him with equal force before he had time to carry out his terrorist plot, he would have picked someplace else...where he would NOT be met with equal force.
I'm sorry but guns are not the problem here. It is a convenient scapegoat and symptom of a much bigger HUMAN issue: people need to care about each other. That means protecting each other, too...with adequate deterrent force when evil lurks. And like it or not, it lurks everywhere.

Im sorry, but that last line was too much. Im sure this guys family is hurting pretty bad from this, at least as much as the kids families are and to say that it is her fault that this happened is just low, you really should feel bad about saying something like that. Immagine if someone close to you did this and said you should feel any way responsible, you would want to kill yourself from the guilt, so go easy on the deceased and their families.

The truth is that MOST GUN-OWNERS ARE IN FAVOR OF LIMITATIONS ON GUNS.

The problem is that idiots like you polarize the issue. Let me explain.

I actually like your first two paragraphs, but...

The third is shameful and is a major part of the "problem." It is full of ad hominem attacks (bankrupt, blind, etc.)and straw-man emotional appeals ("20 little children"...20 people being is terrible, even 1 person (adult or child) dead is terrible...don't act like you are the only person who is hurt by this incident)

You don't want a solution to the problem. You just want piss off your perceived political opponents. You are using this incident for political motives.

Again, THE TRUTH IS THAT MOST GUN-OWNERS ARE IN FAVOR OF LIMITATIONS ON GUNS.

"The first murder when Cain Killed Abel had no gun involved. Cain still died."

The fact you think that a character in a bible fairy story was the first human murdered indicates a seriously tenuous grip on sanity. Therein lies one of the reasons gun killings are so much more prevalent in the US than in Australia, insanity.

We are horrified by the actions of this sick little person. We recognize that in a nation without nationalized healthcare, mental health care, safety nets, or a strong sense of social responsibility, we are going to have issues with insane, violent people. When you have a media network that puts his ugly little fact on the cover of a magazine - bigger than the president's cameo photo - and is stupid enough to ask "why did he do it?" As is making him a star didn't encourage copycat behavior...you'll get more of the same.

Given all that, you need some security in schools. If the woods are teeming with coyotes - you need a guardian dog to watch the sheep. Every intelligent farmer knows this.

As for the idea that a well-trained security officer with the ability to lock down a school electronically would need a semi-automatic rifle (big gun) to thwart the attack of some punk with his mamma's gun? That is ridiculous. Pressing a button to lock down the gates and alert everyone to secure the classroom doors would have more than sufficed.

Moreover, any trained cop or security officer with a basic handgun would have been more than capable of stopping this punk - class II body armor or not (just shoot hips, legs, head) - very easily. Amateurs always worry about hardware (caliber, mag capacity, etc.) Professionals understand software is far more important.

Given that, I would confidently predict that my 70 year old mother carrying her boring little .38 snubbie would have been able to stop a wretched, cowardly 120 lbs sack of fly dung like the current celebrity of the hour - probably with one or two shots. Given that, a younger, similarly-trained cop, with a Glock 22 should have no problem.

I really don't care what the gun violence rate is in England. I care what the overall violence rate is. It has been proven that countries with higher gun ownership have lower murder rates. Sure, without guns people might have to use a knife, or a tree branch or a rope or....the list goes on. Without guns, I am no match for a man who is significantly larger and stronger than I am. With one, I am his equal.
Guns in the hands of trained citizens make us all safer.

"It has been proven that countries with higher gun ownership have lower murder rates". I would really love to see your reference for that. Because I'm sure even you know that you just lied.

To use Australia as an example, the number of homocides has dropped from 354 in 1996 to 260 in 2010. During that time our population has grown from 18.3 million to 22.3 million.

A 27% drop in homicides and a 22% increase in population. One of the reasons: in 1996 the federal government bought back over 631,000 firearms after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were murdered.

The last gun massacre in Australia?

2002! 2 people shot!

Please now compare this with the US and its proven lower murder rates.

We all love Australia. You guys have tons of space, few people, free healthcare, cheap education for citizens, and beautiful beaches everywhere.

Parents the world over allow their 18 year old daughters to backpack OZ alone or with friends for months with no concern about them being raped or abducted. Here, you can't let your daughter drive 2 days cross country alone without a very serious concern that something bad might happen to her.

You guys pay a $16 minimum wage and the baristas at Starbucks make $25 an hour. Hostels on the nicest beaches are 20 bucks a day so not much of a homeless problem. You even give monthly aid to the drunken aborigines and your "project housing" is better than many of our middle class neighborhoods in the US. Our exchange rate relative to the Australian dollar has been cut in half since 2002.

The murder rate in the USA is 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Here in Hong Kong, a perfect example of a place where people who don't even want their police to be armed, it is 0.2 murders. Far from showing that places with more guns have fewer crimes, Hong Kong has fewer guns and less than 1/200 as many murders as the US does. You can't even talk about oppressive government or socialism; Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world.

In less than a month after Newtown, we've seen at least two more shootings in the USA that I know about, and this is from someone halfway around the world; I only see the things that make international news. When will it end?

Today, America weeps. For today evil calmly walked into an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut and violently took the lives of twenty young children and six adults. Society is upset. I am upset, but as always, after incidents such as this slaughter of innocent lives, instead of us blaming the real culprits of these violent crimes, we blame the instrument of such crimes; we blame the guns. A gun did not grow legs and proceeded to walk into the Sandy Hook Elementary School, with the intention of killing babies; a man named Adam Lanza walked into that school and took the lives of those children.

The usual ambulance chaser crusaders are now on television demanding that the government impose stricter gun law to prevent such crimes of violence from ever happening again. They claim that if we had stricter gun laws, Adam Lanza, who is only twenty years old, would not have been able to buy the gun he used in murdering those innocent children. The flaw in their argument becomes apparent when it is pointed out that Adam Lanza did not buy the gun in question; the gun belonged to his mother, a well-respected teacher and law abiding citizen, who we now know taught at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Based on news reports, Adam Lanza killed his mother before he matched over to the school and killed twenty-six more innocent people. So, if a person can get a gun without buying it, what good will come by just initiating a stricter gun buying policy? Adam Lanza could also easily have grabbed a knife and stabbed his mother to death, and then gone to the school to commit more evil. He would not have killed twenty-six more people by using just a knife, but someone else would have died at that school. Adam Lanza could also have easily made Molotov cocktails, and killed and maimed more than twenty-six people. Are we going to ban bottles and petrol?

Some people are demanding that the government should re-initiate the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I think this is a good idea, but Adam Lanza did not commit his crime using an assault weapon; from what the news media are reporting, Adam Lanza committed his crime using a pistol. So, even if the assault weapon ban had not expired, it would not have prevented Adam Lanza from walking into that school with a gun. Some people are saying that the government should ban guns totally. Really! Do we honestly think this is ever going to happen in the United States? The right to bear arms is enshrined in the United States constitution; the United States Congress cannot even agree on a budget bill, do we genuinely think that the United States Congress will pass a constitutional amendment revoking the right of Americans to bear arms? This notion that the United States government will outlaw firearms in the foreseeable future is unrealistic. Nevertheless, after every major gun related incident, some Americans demand that the government ban guns, then they sit back and blame everything from guns, to bad schools, to Michael and Tito Jackson for the violent crimes in the United States; they will basically blame everything for gun violence except the real culprit, the person who pulled the trigger.

Now I am all for sensible and stricter gun regulations, but guns do not kill people, people kill people. If by some miracle all the guns in the world were too magical disappeared, a person bent on taking another person’s life, will either pick up a stick, a rock, a knife, or a Molotov cocktail, and then proceed to commit murder. The violent crime problem in America is not a gun problem; it is a society problem. We live in a society that glorifies violence. A massacre is a windfall for our news media; CNN will dedicate four or more days to covering a violent crime from every angle, almost like a radio sport announcer relaying a baseball game.

My fellow Americans, we live in a society where people kill other people over a parking space. Have you ever seen the fights that occur on Black Friday, where adults threatening to kill each other over Tickle-Me-Elmo? I am not even going to touch road rage, where people have used a spanner as a weapon. Should we now ban spanners? We should have stricter gun rules, but that is not going to solve the problem because guns are the easy scapegoats; the object we chose to blame while we close our eyes to the real problem. We live in a society that glorifies violence. We live in a society where people are not willing to take responsibility for their actions; people are only too happy to blame someone else for their problems, so when they get upset, they pull out a gun and make some other person suffer. Adam Lanza took his mother’s gun and killed her, and then he proceeded to go to her place of work, the Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he killed twenty innocent children. Yes, we need fewer guns, but fewer guns or no guns at all will not solve the violent problem because the problem is not guns; the problem is us.

Yes, obviously people can kill people without guns. Guns make violence easier, quicker, more efficient. Talking about the importance of violent "culture" as a reason to ignore the effects of guns is ridiculous, one does not preclude the other. This is also the point made in the blog post, which is really that we need to completely ban guns, as other countries have had success with.

Switzerland has extremely lax gun laws, but that country does not have the same level of violent crime when compared to the United States, even when the numbers are adjusted to mimic population size. Afghanistan, a war torn country with small arms everywhere has a lower violence rate (not military related) than the United States. The variables show the number of guns in a society are not the only factor when looking at the level of violent gun related crimes.

This is an emotional issue, but we have to analyze this issue carefully, and implement solutions based on where the numbers takes us, and not where we want the numbers to take us, regardless of ideology. Yes, guns have a greater killing power than a knife, but if all the guns in the United States were to suddenly vanish, based on precedent, it is logically to say that we would see an increase in the number of deaths attributed to stabbing and clubbing. Since we know that guns are not going anywhere anytime soon, it is only prudent to see what combination of solutions can be combined to help reduce the likelihood of violent crimes occurring.

Because the 1934 GCA created a $200.00 tax, background check and registry of those types of weapons and in 1986 the registry was closed driving the price of the estimated 250,000 machine guns and destructive devices on the registry through the roof. A Sten gun a $10.00 collection of machined steel produced in vast quantities by the English in WWII goes for $4500 to 6000.00 in the US, an M16 with a fun switch goes for 12 to 20K.
I agree with you they are more closely aligned with militia weapons than dad's hunting rifle but congress doesn't see it that way and hasn't for years.

But have a stricter gun control is atleast a start. Just because there wont be a complete ban doesnt mean we should leave it as it is. We need to start somewhere, and make it more difficult for individuals to procure guns will take us one step closer.
Also getting magzines and bullets can be made stricter and way more expensive. As with cigarettes, increase the taxes on guns and bullets, so less and less people will want to have these WMDs.

A psychopath with a chainsaw would have killed dozens of children at school...and there is no Federal restrictions on chainsaw purchases.

A hammer in a sociopath's hands can also be deadly. Or a baseball bat. Or a good sized rock.

Yet laws will never regulate hammer purchases.

The problem is not guns...they are just a tool. Like a hammer, saw or screwdriver...which alll can be deadly.

The problem is psychopaths and sociopaths who go psycho.
The US needs better mental illness screening and treatment.
Half the US population is addicted to either alcohol, marijuana, morphine pain killers or cocaine.

Mental health is more important to your happiness and function than physica health.

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Also, everything you mention, save rocks, are not typically ranged weapons, and require the user to be in melee range with one or two targets at a time. Tell me the last mass murder with a bat, or a rock for that matter. Or a drive-by chainsawing.

"Really? If someone came at you with a hammer, or a chainsaw, you'd just run away"
And then we go into sandtabling. Running away from somebody isn't as simple when you're in a building or surprised, for starters.

HOW SOFT HAS MY NATION I SO RIGHTFULLY FOUGHT FOR HAS BECOME!!!! When did America's become such TWATS? Do you not know we live in the most peaceful time in human times? We would on a daily bases have whole cities murdered and taken over with swords and a horse. Just please understand the horror of any type of gun control will be on the bloody hand of the politician that tries to pass it. You want a civil war? Just try to take the right I so diligently fought for. It would be carnage and I am proud to say I would enjoy it.

No, it's going to come to roughly the same results. You run away, you find your head, you find safety. Hitting requires aim. Aim isn't easy when your target's fleeing or getting behind cover. If they're not fleeing, it's going to be as easy to hit with a gun as with a knife or an axe.

There may have been less deaths if he had a knife, but they were going to be cornered.

I propose to legalize marijuana and supply it in droves to all the country's malcontent. By doing this we will solve nearly all of the country's violence problems...unless of course we run out of dorito's

I've read that there's a push to ban pointed kitchen knives in Britain. It will be interesting to see what's next, if that goes through. My money is on heavy things.
We do need much better gun control laws and far fewer guns here in the US, though.

Nope - it's only illegal to carry concealed knives of more than 6 inches on your person (e.g. up sleeves or in pockets). And obviously, that only applies to public places in urban areas. Kitchen knives are still allowed in kitchens, in sports bags or even in your hand on the bus so long as it isn't concealed.

Sensible - 211 people were murdered with knives & "sharp instruments" in 2011, which is almost 5 times the number killed with guns.

I guess there are just situations when people go nuts, grab the most weapon-like tool they have to hand, and go out to kill... even if it's a kitchen knife or similar. Better, at that moment, if they don't have a blade up their sleeve.

Fortunately, most such attempts fail. When somebody comes at you with a knife, you have a good chance to defend yourself, and a high probability of surviving any stab wounds (assuming somebody calls an ambulance fast).

----------------------------------------------------

Unlike America however, we're actually free where it really matters. We can drink beer in public and don't have to worry about police harassing us.

Kindly read what I wrote. I didn't say they were illegal, but that there was a push to make them so. Try walking onto a bus with a 10 inch butcher knife in you hand, and see how that goes over. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 seems to contradict your supposition.

Comparing the two countries isn't particularly valid. Take a look at demographics. The US is far less homogenous and stagnant. As of 2005, 21% of all immigrants in the world live in the US. Other countries have recently started loosening immigration requirements, but the US has always allowed significant immigration. That carries with it advantages, as well as risks.

Wrong. Foreign born migrants make up 13.5% of the US population, up from 9.1% in 1990. The UK went from 6.5% to 10.4%. France has been at 10% the entire period. The Netherlands have gone from 8% to 10%. Sweden, on the other hand, has surpassed the US, going from 9.1% to 14.1%.

As of the 2001 census, the UK was 86% White British, 5% White (other), with no other group above 2%

I did read a recent (2011 numbers) paper (probably OECD) in which the UK had surpassed the US in its foreign born share of population (not that it's a competition - it just helps to make a nonsense of that "homogeneous people don't kill each other" pish.

This really is a bit of a side track - diversity of immigrant populations really should have no causal relation with homicide rates. The world's countries which are probably most welcoming to immigrants - Canada, Australia & New Zealand - have similar homicide rates to Western Europe (and funnily enough, they also have less proliferation of lethal weapons).

I agree. First let me say the tragedy was horrific. The tragedy if they tried to remove OUR guns would be a million times worse. It will never happen nor will we TRUE Americans allow it to happen. If I want to go anywhere and kill anyone I can with my bear hands. With a knife you can kill as many people as you can run a blade in. We need God back in this country not politicians taking a tragedy and turning it into a witch hunt. Once again leave it up to liberals to turn something like this into a political frenzy.

I do hope America can continue to build on its long history of non-violent political reforms demonstrated by the anti-slavery, women's rights, civil rights and most recently, gay rights movements.
Terrible violence has been done to these non-violent demonstrators often by the state and individuals. But that's the point: change is hard. However, we hope, that justice, common decency and the rule of the law will prevail.

You "...hope America can continue to build on its long history of non-violent political reforms demonstrated by the anti-slavery..."

Ma'am I don't know where you learned your US history but perhaps you may wish to look up "US Civil War, 1861-1865". It was merely the bloodiest war of modern times by ratio of casualties to combatants.

To push religion on others does nothing practical nor offer any solutions at all.

Never mind the fact that Christianity is a religion which is supposed to preach non-violence. In the New Testament weren’t prophets stoned to death without fighting back and their message of peace more powerful for it? Nowhere in the Bible does Christ advocate self-preservation through violence. I don’t say people should accept threats to their safety only that paranoid fear shouldn’t blind them on how to prevent tragedies.

Ghandi understood well enough “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ”.

"We need God back in this country not politicians taking a tragedy and turning it into a witch hunt."

If the problem with gun killings is due to Godlessness, then Scandanavia must be much more Godly than the US. Even taking account of the Brevik killings, Scandanavia has substantially fewer gun killings per capita. Nope this is not about God. It is about evil and the US is much more evil.

So some people escape jail, others go to jail... for speech that isn't free. Yes, Britain has liberal freedom of speech by the standards of the 200+ countries in the world, but much less free speech than America, the blogger's original comparison. Second, the fact that the British news & entertainment media are free to spew a cacophony of tacky drivel on 95% of subjects isn't the penultimate measure; the true test of free speech is the existence of forbidden topics.

With freedom comes responsibility. If you do not hold your freedom with responsbility then should you keep it?
The facebook case is not one concerned with "freedom" but about internet bullying. The Scientology boy never went to court. Most people recognise the difference between having the freedome to do and say things and the responsibility that comes with it.
So we in Britain are not so interested in the freedom to do absolutely what we like. In the guns case, like giving guns to 5 years old, people with no training and having the "freedom" to own machine guns, assault rifles, artilley, etc. Then putting the results of that general ineptitude on utoob.
I own a gun and with it comes a significant responsibility to keep it very safely, out of the way of children and use it under strict guidance. That is the responsibility of freedom.

Sir;
As a sometime NRA member, now a retired expatriate, I feel a good American compromise would be similar to your countries' examination of thier mental state. mental illness has become a really serious problem unanticipated by our founders. My travels have suggested to me this problem is developing wordwide. Don't you feel a need to protect yourself + family??
For reasons demonstrated at the failed ITU conference + the daily BBC news I would be very pleased to see a '2nd Amendment' clause in the UN charter for everyone's protection'. You seem to doubt that Americans face risk from thier government,
Sir, Please examine the ACLU.org website. Of course, the ITU situation suggests we aren't the only ones.

While I agree this might not strictly be a UN matter, it has dedicated itself to "promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights". The first substantive human right is the right to life, to not be killed by another human being. Also, the US are a member state of the UN, therefore the UN most definitely has business in "this country", whether you agree or not.

"Guns don't kill people, crazy people don't kill people"...
Crazy people kill people all the time. Many killers, including serial killers, never pick up a gun at all and manage to kill quite a few people. They of course don't do it so publicly and in such spectacular fashion. How about the number of sad excuses for human beings that shake, beat, or starve their children to death with no weapon needed. How about the number of sad excuses for human beings that raise their children up in a cycle of violence, neglect, abuse and rape that conditions them to become violent hateful people.
It's easier to become a parent in this country than it is to buy a gun...It's also apparently easier to blame inanimate objects rather than take the personal responsibility to solve the deeper issue.

You know who would have to take personal responsibility in this latest round.

The shooter. Woops, he shot himself.
His mom who bought the guns that he used. He shot her too.

But please, lecture them about "personal responsibility."

But you're missing the point. The guy in China failed to kill those kids because he didn't have a gun. Now removing guns won't stop crazy people from attacking kids or whoever, but it will make them less effective at it.

"But you're missing the point. The guy in China failed to kill those kids because he didn't have a gun. Now removing guns won't stop crazy people from attacking kids or whoever, but it will make them less effective at it"
Really? Didn't seem to make these guys less effective...bet one of the victims wished they had a gun.http://www.danwei.com/serial-killers-in-china/
But the good news is that the cops were there to solve it several years later and the news was allowed to report it!

These guys were less effective. In not one of those cases did a killer murder 20+ people in less than an hour.

Those guys were able to kill and keep killing because of gross incompetence by the police. A situation that does not happenub the US

That Chinese police are incompetent and desperately need an amber alert system is beyond dispute. But few of those killers fit the criteria of a mass shooter. They were genuine habitual pedophiles/serial killers by and large. The kind that competent police are good at catching once people start going missing.

The UN? Where countries like Iran and China can call the United States to task because of our human rights record? It is mind boggling to me that any serious person can still consider the UN effective at anything. They have somehow found a way to be a more corrupt and ineffective body than our House and Senate.

You city slickers who talk about banning guns come live out in rural America. Say guns as a whole are banned, someone breaks into my house who happened to get a gun thru black market cause bad guys don't really follow the law now do they. Once he/she is in my house, I am his slave, he owns me since I am helpless to whatever he demands from me. Oh you say, lock the door call the cops, well a gun can break almost any lock and where I live if a cop shows up within a hour of calling 911 you are lucky, but sadly you are dead along with your family...grow up America and realize crazy people with guns kills people..good people just wanna live their life and protect their family and their property, not go around killing others...

Also, if this gun control crap was about protecting people, why don't you hear them talking about banning vehicles when someone kills another person in a car accident...or say it was a drunk driver that killed a family of 4, do you hear people calling for alcohol to be banned? NO...it is always the guns fault, NEVER THE PERSON HOLDING THE GUN...as if that gun can shoot by itself magically..

Go look at Chicago and tell me how those gun control laws are working and then come try to tell me again I should give up mine, it ain;t gonna happen people, give it up and pray that Jesus Christ is allowed back in our schools so that he can participate in the lives of these children...GOD BLESS THEM ALL, they are sleeping with my lord and savior tonight...

If only his mom, who owned the guns and was a teacher, had taken them to school with her instead of being shot by her own son in the face at home with those self same guns.

She would have blown him away without hesitation, since normal rational people are always quick to use lethal force at the drop of a hat. At least, more willing than crazy people who premeditate their crimes and plan to start shooting the minute the door opens.

Why I bet an armed teacher would look at a door opening and decide if it's one of these possibilities in 2 seconds.

1. Mrs. Henderson, the librarian. -- Do not shoot.
2. Mr. Lutz, the Principal -- Do not shoot.
3. Stephen -- a student from a different classroom -- Do not shoot.
4. Alex, Mrs. Henderson's son. -- Do not shoot.
5. Psychotic gunman -- Shoot.

The problem is, in this case, that a normal rational person will never be able to put a person in box #5, before #5 shoots them first.

I understand where your coming from. The hole in this discussion is that the right to bear arms is directed at fighting a Government that turns against the people. i.e. England when our forefathers left, The Taliban or any of the communist regimes. From the posts here - the notion of not trusting the Government seems to be lost on our British counterparts. Those that are convinced that the people don't need guns will feel that way until the Government, or Bad Guy comes for them. I also am curious why those calling for gun control are not as not worried about the loss of life in several countries in the African continent.

Your theoretical scenario is plausible. So are several reports of actual suppression of individuals intent on mass shootings. Their efforts did not get counted as "mass shootings" because they were stopped.

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:

Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, last week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

Santee, 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

I don't know why you're posting a mother jones debunking as I never cited their research.

The only policy that has been shown to work is making assault rifles not household items. The Australian assault weapons ban was very successful. The problem with concealed carry laws is not in any way related to massacres. Concealed carry laws make temporary altercations very final. People getting shot because their dogs won't stop barking and such.

Columbine's armed security was AWOL at the time of the attack. I cited the concrete examples from the diss on the Mother Jones article as a contrast to your purely hypothetical narrative suggesting that having sane, trained, and armed people in the proximity of a mass shooting attempt is ineffectual.

It's reminiscent in the sense that we're referring to horrible mutilation and death.

But for every massacre stopped, you have 100 more small disagreements that became lethal arguments because someone was walking around with a gun. Even if your argument was true, the people protected from massacres would be outweighed by the many, many more who would die because disagreements that used to end in fistfights now end in shootings.

So I say enjoy your guns, gun owners. I hope they make you happy in a way that breathing, smiling six-year old children cannot.

NC - No one (Including Desi) is condoning the acts of the insane. In the end, one cannot rationalize irrational people.

Since the Australian Gun Law was mentioned - I conducted some very brief research on the Australian gun law. In realty, it wasn't an outright ban, but a limitation on gun types i.e. auto, semi-auto and pump action and a Government buyback program. There is a very good article on factcheck.org, snopes.com and the raw statistics on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website.

Excerpt from Snopes on an Australian Gun Stats email:

Context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

Excerpt from Factcheck:

On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

What is clear is that the gun related homicide rate has lowered - but didn't disappear. What is different is that gun ownership was not a right in Australian which is directly opposite of the US making a direct comparison difficult.

Blimey guest-ljeonaw, how bad is the situation over there? Reading some of your comments makes me imagine there are drug-addled maniacs marauding across the plains and descending gunless homesteads teeth gnashing, eyes blazing. I’ve been fortunate enough to visit the US a few times and I never felt in any kind of danger except at the airport where I was frisked (a first for me). There are rural communities in the UK too, and some places are very remote indeed - like the Shetlands, the Orkneys, the Western Isles. People move to the countryside over here in order to escape the casual violence one can encounter in our cities, particularly on a Friday night. They get into organic farming or run a bed and breakfast and generally live long, healthy and relatively stress-free lives. I don't recall every reading about a remote homestead being attacked by murderous intruders, at least not since the time of King Alfred and the Vikings. Maybe our remote isn’t remote enough. If there are any Aussies reading this: is it this bad in the Outback?

I agree that gun control has been very effective in Britain at keeping the homicide rate low (though non-fatal violent crime is much higher in the UK than the US). However that era is coming to an end. Current DIY guns in the UK are crude and ammunition scarce but that is now. Lexington, what will they (and other DIY weapons) be like in 5 or 10 years time given the home manufacturing/3D printing revolution?

You need £10K for a printer, the skills and intellect to use it and how do you make ammunition using a 3D printer. And is it really likely that there will be workshops full of people making weapons without being found out. If you are good with CNC today you could make a precision weapon. So what is the difference really.
More excuses for the US showing absolutely no moral leadership in the free world.....again.

< "You need £10K for a printer, the skills and intellect to use it and how do you make ammunition using a 3D printer." >

In the mid-90's my company acquired our department's first 1 terabyte server for about $100,000. A few months ago, I picked up a 3 terabyte server for our home network for about $100 at the local Staples store.

http://defensedistributed.com/ is a relatively challenging project to create downloadable definition files for 3D printing of entire weapons. It will be a surprise if it takes as long as a decade. Doing the same for ammunition and weapons extending parts like high capacity magazines is decidedly less challenging, in fact these goals might be seen as subgoals of the larger project, and they will be "online" well before the entire project is complete.

Timothy McVeigh managed 168 without a knife or a gun. The Anarchist's cookbook is dead easy to find on the internet. The only thing that's going to change is the weapon of choice, and cars, matches and gasoline, sulfur and detergent, bleach and ammonia, knives, axes, hammers are plenty easy to come by. Once guns get taken out of lawful hands, they're going to transition to these once the first case starts.

I will agree with tougher mental competence requirements, but to sit there and say removing guns is going to do anything about this or the other situation isn't going to make much difference. The bar has been set for the other loonies watching the news. You're just treating the symptom.

A lot of these guys aren't calculating criminals like McVeigh or Hans Brevik. Of course a rational but evil individual can devise all manner of ways of killing people. But this guy, and lots of other shooters have not been rational.

They didn't write 1000 page manifestos detailing their future vision, they had a psychotic break and use the deadliest thing they can get to easily.

There were 27 dead and 1 wounded victim in Connecticut. In China 22 wounded victims, no deaths. Two people, identical targets, different methods.

It's not that hard to pick up bleach and ammonia if you want to make a mark. Secondly, the Aurora shooter had MANY explosives in his apartment waiting to go off at the turn of a doorknob. Rationality does play a role in it, but if they don't have access to a gun, they will be stewing anyways, long before the first fatality starts. These people don't just wake up one morning with a psychotic fit.

On a sidenote, Breivik was a hack. He plagiarized the Unabomber and was a horrible rambler.

It's not that hard yet why don't we have ten cases of bleach and ammonia attacks in the past 20 years?

Oh yeah, because guns are easier and more lethal.

For some of these people it is a one day thing. The guys who's off his meds. They will of course have had ongoing problem before then probably, but they won't have been in a permanent state of murderous rage. The goal is to make that period less lethal. Guns are to mass killings as matches are to fire; you can still do a mass killing without a gun just as you can start a fire without a match, but it's harder.

Israel, for example, recently said soldiers can no longer keep their guns at home. They did this because it reduced suicide.

Suicidal thoughts like murderous ones, can be long term, but keeping a gun out of easy reach reduces the likelihood of someone being able to act on those thoughts and increases the chance of someone being able to intervene usefully.

Bleach and Ammonia hasn't been used because it's not vogue. Arson and knifes as in Britain, China, and Japan would be the secondary choice

Guns are not necessarily easier. Their lethality is better than that of a knife, but not by an exceptional amount. The probable reason for why this shooter managed to inflict such horrible casualties was because he cornered them in a room in the middle of a school with no security compliment. The Aurora shooter only managed 12 kills in a much larger theatre, the Clackamas managed 2,

I would be an advocate for expanded use of background checks and a public gun safe awareness campaign to reduce the number of firearms stolen. I do think that gun owners have a responsibility to not lose control of their guns. This may require a single standard of licensing not unlike that of a vehicle.

There should also be a better method of reporting mental episodes. The Fort Hood shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, and the Tuscon shooter were popping red flags like it was Christmas, yet very little was done.

The other point is Lanza picked up the guns fom his mother's collection. She was an avid gun collector.

The central problem as you point out is a failure of public health measures that might deal with insanity, but here again we let the mentally ill wander the streets and go untreated to either die there or take a few with them.

Thank you very much for that point. Yes there are tortured souls everywhere. But a pissed off guy with a knife or a bat, you could throw a chair at, or tackle from behind, or run from, since he would have to be pretty close to get you. At dinner tonight I asked a pro gun friend (and I am NOT pro gun. The guns in question are for killing people, they have no logical use for anything else. Did you have "kill someone" on your to do list? No? Good, then you won't be needing that. These people all claim to be god fearing christians, remember rule number one, Thou shalt not kill?) and when I asked "What if it had been your child's school, and he was dead now?" She said "You can't make this personal" I ask you WHAT could possibly be more personal than dead children? Nobody needs guns, and obviously there would be a lag time between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" not having them anymore, but we don't need them. A good parent takes their child's things away if they have shown they cannot have them responsibly. We as a nation have more than demonstrated that we should not have guns. Another friend made the point that the 2nd Amendment was written in the late 1700's (?) you want a gun, fine. You can have a musket. Takes about half an hour to get a bullet into it, but fine, have a musket knock yourself out. And since when did anybody's "right" to have a gun (FOR THE purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia...Wouldn't that be the National Guard? You want to play with guns, go join the guard, then at least you'll have to help people once in a while) when did that right exceed all the other rights? The world has changed, life changes, so the rules have to change sometimes. As a Nation we are in our infancy still, perhaps we need to do some growing up, and put the safety of everyone over the hobbies of less than .3 of 1% of the population (the NRA is - that's right LESS than one third of one percent of the US population.) Okay, enough ranting for one night, must go pick up a child from a late movie, where I hope since it was about hobbits & wizards, if there were lunatics they were only carrying wands. At least people are speaking up about all of this. Goodnight all.

Thank you very much for that point. Yes there are tortured souls everywhere. But a pissed off guy with a knife or a bat, you could throw a chair at, or tackle from behind, or run from, since he would have to be pretty close to get you. At dinner tonight I asked a pro gun friend (and I am NOT pro gun. The guns in question are for killing people, they have no logical use for anything else. Did you have "kill someone" on your to do list? No? Good, then you won't be needing that. These people all claim to be god fearing christians, remember rule number one, Thou shalt not kill?) and when I asked "What if it had been your child's school, and he was dead now?" She said "You can't make this personal" I ask you WHAT could possibly be more personal than dead children? Nobody needs guns, and obviously there would be a lag time between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" not having them anymore, but we don't need them. A good parent takes their child's things away if they have shown they cannot have them responsibly. We as a nation have more than demonstrated that we should not have guns. Another friend made the point that the 2nd Amendment was written in the late 1700's (?) you want a gun, fine. You can have a musket. Takes about half an hour to get a bullet into it, but fine, have a musket knock yourself out. And since when did anybody's "right" to have a gun (FOR THE purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia...Wouldn't that be the National Guard? You want to play with guns, go join the guard, then at least you'll have to help people once in a while) when did that right exceed all the other rights? The world has changed, life changes, so the rules have to change sometimes. As a Nation we are in our infancy still, perhaps we need to do some growing up, and put the safety of everyone over the hobbies of less than .3 of 1% of the population (the NRA is - that's right LESS than one third of one percent of the US population.) Okay, enough ranting for one night, must go pick up a child from a late movie, where I hope since it was about hobbits & wizards, if there were lunatics they were only carrying wands. At least people are speaking up about all of this. Goodnight all.

one could make the cynical observation that Lanza's mother had it coming, she knew that there was a stitch loose with her son, had he only killed her.... (you follow my drift, I prefer not to write it.

Mr. Teacup775 (a lot of tea!),
I cannot discuss verbally the gun issue because I have slight (Dutch) accent and soon the other person calls me a socialist. The gun laws in The Netherlands are harsh and still gun violence does erupt. Lately there has been a unfortunate death-by-kicking incident. The discussion in the Dutch newspapers now concentrate on the fact that males up to 24 are very dangerous. The experienced Dutch policemen know that when www is in place (wife, work and home (the Dutch work for home starts with a "w")) all is (almost) well. However, there is excellent psychological help available in Holland and I think, when all is said and done and the price of a human life is set at (?) the availability of a healthcare system with help for psychological problems is in place, even America can add themselves to the civilized countries and save money to boot. In fact the Dutch society many times looks at the cost of those issues and calculate the rewards. (Sorry I forgot, in America too, the Dept. of Transportation sets a human life at $5 million and the EPA at $9 million).
My apologies that I ramble on, but my granddaughter's name is Madeleine, just like Madeleine Hsu and I cringe when I think about it.

I just cobbled the pen name from an object at hand and a random number. :)

I have also visited Holland several times to enjoy the national winter sport. I've also seen the marked difference between elder care there and the fate of my own father here in the states.

Americans would mostly benefit from a bit of travel that actually has them encountering the local culture.

Any parent cringes at times like this.

I think you might have put a finger on a major factor. People are marrying later and later in life, if at all. For the most part, the human animal might tend to become more unhinged outside of the social bonds we evolved to have.

By that poorly spun logic, since the right to free speech was written in 1789, you have no right to speech other than as town crier or perhaps some very limited printing. Definitely nothing electronic.

Furthermore, since the protections against search and seizure were written then, your car is not protected.

Also, since cruel and unusual punishment is also an artifact of that date, might I offer you some tazing as a sentence?

And how many millions are killed each year by the chinese government because their people have no guns to defend themselves? My fault, you sound like a lib, you probably believe atrocities and massacres committed by governments is perfectly ok.

I do enjoy this kind of ridiculous debate. Somehow no violence or bad thing ever happened before guns. If I remember correctly, over 3000 people died in new york, weapon of choice planes. The point being it is the people who commit these atrocities that are the problem and whatever is in their head that makes them believe killing others is a valid choice. The presence of a gun does not cause people just just go insane.

So lets ban guns and then you can cut off the first two fingers of every human to ensure they cant swing a bat, club or knife and while we are at it may as well cut our hamstrings to ensure we can kick or run. Oh yes of course, all of us men need our junk removed because of course the presence of said junk is the reason why men rape women, so remove the tool and problem solved.

Have you ever checked some history? The first move tyrannies make to begin imposing a variety of bad governments is to ban guns. Thank you for trying to help the american socialists turn us into the next failed attempt at marxist utopias.

Did I say that "no violence ever happens without guns?" I said "having easily accessible guns makes certain kinds of violent crimes far more dangerous."

Saying that banning guns wouldn't have stopped 9/11 is like saying banning guns wouldn't have stopped Pearl Harbor, or Hurricane Katrina. Guns have nothing to do with 9/11.

Guns don't make people insane, but guns make insane people more dangerous. You're more likely to survive or even avoid getting stabbed by an insane person than you are being shot by one. Guns give people the ability to kill effectively.

As for China, the government has not killed millions for a while. Even thought the label says "communist" they haven't been in the Marxist utopia business for 30 years. They're an authoritarian state that runs for the benefit of large Chinese and foreign business interests.

Interestingly enough, it was the widespread presence of guns within China during the original Revolution that allowed the Chinese communists to stage their Marxist uprising. The fact that the Nationalist government (not a particularly competent government themselves) was unable to maintain a monopoly on force was a big contributor to their downfall.

The myth of authoritarian governments banning all guns is somewhat spurious. A big part of the German rearmament was secretly training army officers and soldiers in the early 30's through ostensibly civilian shooting and sportsmen organizations.

An armed citizenry is not a safeguard against tyranny in a modern state, for all intents and purposes, a state will still enjoy a monopoly on force and the skill necessary to use it.

Even if you believe in the concealed handgun argument that still doesn't explain why it should be okay for civilians to have assault rifles. Burglars and rapists and car thieves are not coming to your house in full body armor and 6 man squads.

If you want to live in a society where the constant threat of death from a stranger is seen as the foundation of the social compact than that's your prerogative.

Very interesting comparison. I've always thought of China as a very open, free and democratic society. They surely treasure their freedoms the same way we do. They must know something we in America don't. I'm sure this sort of things don't happen in Cuba, Iran or North Korea either.

>The guns in question are for killing people, they have no logical use for anything else. Did you have "kill someone" on your to do list? No?
AR-15s are regularly used by hunters for hunting deer and pig. There's nothing in these firearms which make them only suitable for military operations or homicide. Not one. The idea that AR-15s are 'military style' weapons 'capable of heavy firepower' is an absolutely misleading term. An infantry platoon equipped with nothing but M16s, no armor, no grenades, and no rocket launchers is considered very vulnerable to everything else. The Military also makes regular use of pump action shotguns and hunting rifles, therefore most of those types of weapons on the market can be considered military styled - are they military grade weapons as well?

You also fail to realize why these arms proliferate so easily. If you know how to stamp steel, you know how to make an automatic firearm at a cheaper price than that bushmaster ever was. This isn't rocket science. you have Afghani people who live in mud huts who replicate Kalashnikovs and Makarov pistols for regular sale. This doesn't even include the number of guns already stuck in criminal pockets. Are you sincerely suggesting that a person who wants to practice self-defense needs to carry a /musket/ when it's more functional to build a Sten gun?

>A good parent takes their child's things away if they have shown they cannot have them responsibly.
You're taking them from everyone who legitimately got one, responsible or not. This is absolutely unfair in a situation when you're trying to be responsible for over 300 million 'children.'

> perhaps we need to do some growing up, and put the safety of everyone over the hobbies of less than .3 of 1% of the population (the NRA is - that's right LESS than one third of one percent of the US population.)
The number of members in the NRA does not equal the population of gunowners in the United States. That's not even close to the actual number. It is not fair to label everyone who wants to keep firearms as a member of the NRA.

>Interestingly enough, it was the widespread presence of guns within China during the original Revolution that allowed the Chinese communists to stage their Marxist uprising. The fact that the Nationalist government (not a particularly competent government themselves) was unable to maintain a monopoly on force was a big contributor to their downfall.

They were in the middle of a Civil War in an extremely backwards country. Social services at that time were a joke, as would any gun legislation.

>An armed citizenry is not a safeguard against tyranny in a modern state, for all intents and purposes, a state will still enjoy a monopoly on force and the skill necessary to use it.
If the United States chooses to mobilize an armored division against the American citizenry, they have already lost. Tanks and helicopter gunships were not particularly effective in quelling Iraq, it was counter insurgency operations and acquiescing to the Iraqis after years of mismanaging reconstruction operations that ended the war.

Secondly, you're not talking about the United States operating across an ocean. The primary strategic advantage of American military power was that they had a massive labor force and base of operations that was practically untouchable. That is also its primary weakness. The moment a National Guardsmen has to shoot his neighbor in an insurrection, the cohesion of the United States Government becomes in doubt.

China has a spate of Knife attacks, starting in 2010 to now. Calls were made back then to beef security. The Chinese man who wounded 22 with a knife was tackled by security members. He did not have 10 minutes to stab each one of those victims.

The advantage in a gunfight always go to the person willing to shoot first. Had both the attacker and the security guard been armed with guns, the attacker would have been able to shoot and kill the guard instantaneously before the guard could react.

The disadvantage for security personnel is that they don't choose the time they have to act. They have to assess threat and react appropriately. In that time, an attacker with a gun and the intent to use it will just shoot them.

By the time that the security guard asks "Is that person trying to shoot me?" the guard is already dead. If the attacker has a knife, the security guard has more time to react and is far more likely to survive.

Also, did you get a load of that 12 year old kid in Utah who brought a gun to school to protect himself? If only the Sandy Hook 9 year olds had been so safety minded.

>The advantage in a gunfight always go to the person willing to shoot first. Had both the attacker and the security guard been armed with guns, the attacker would have been able to shoot and kill the guard instantaneously before the guard could react.

That is a gross oversimplification of most any security scenario and you know it. Shooting is not guaranteed death, firing is not a guaranteed hit, surprise requires finding the security officer.

But keep on making a wish out of "if I were a psycho I'd just shoot the security officer." Never mind the point was that the Chinese psycho had a pile of security guards to worry about and the Connecticut shooter didn't until 911 got called, where the Chinese knifer had to get past lot of security on high alert for just such an occasion, while the Connecticut shooter was in a small town with cops a 911 call away.

The similarly timed Chinese school attack is one of several that so far have produced 21 dead and many dozens injured.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%93201... "A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents."

Thank you for your thoughtful deference. Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776. The American republic is still very much an "experiment" worth keeping an eye out for tyranny. Consider the Patriot Act. That being said, the founding fathers were quite clear that the 2nd Amendment has limitations, and rightly so. Rational change will come -- decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government. And that's as it should be.

Rational change will come - indeed and it will follow rational debate.

The first question of this debate would be: How does the right to bear arms protect the people from tyranny? Is it plausible that "the people" will take up arms against the US army and prevail in any circumstances whatever?

If rational argument and persuasion are to prevail in disputes then it must prevail without arms, that is what democracy is. So to license the use of deadly force in the pursuit of political aims is incompatible with democracy and therefore so is the "right to bear arms". In short: a constitutional contradiction.

Indeed, over 225 years ago, with single shot, muzzle-loading rifles, nascent "Americans" fought against King George III's administration. And won that battle. People who bring up that example as a justification for bearing arms -- specifically, military-grade weaponry and multi-shot assault weapons -- are essentially making the claim that we should all have individual information satellites because in 1776 we were able to send a letter.

There have been excellent reasons to own guns in the United States, even apart from the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until the late 20th century, a significant population lived in rural or semi-rural communities and many of those were farmers or ranchers or people who might need a pistol, rifle or shotgun as a tool.

In a country where a nominally Progressive President won election by just a few percentage points over, excuse me, a narcissistic idiot, I submit that there is not support to change the structure of gun ownership substantially. There's not the will to remove assault weapons. Americans want guns. Americans want to watch TV and be fat and let other people be rational and intelligent. But, by God, they want guns. Because, you know, well, because. And that's as it should be, too. Intelligence and rationality can't be legislated.

As delightful as it is to discuss the historical rationale for the second amendment it really is foolish narcissism to imagine that rationale still holds true. In an age of drones, nuclear arms, and tanks pretending that private ownership of weapons is going to stop tyranny is ridiculous. At the same time the argument is academic as pointed out because there's no practical way to remove all the guns in circulation already.

Those same "lone, heroic individuals" then also slaughtered tens of thousands of Native Americans with guns. I would say it's a bit 'narcissistic' to have such a selective and flattering view of the early Americans.

It is obvious that there are people who should not own a firearm. It is equally obvious that many of these people already do. Truly meaningful change would involve taking guns away from people we don't think should have them.

So, if by "rational change" we mean change that could prevent the use of firearms by armed citizenry to commit homicides in fits of passion, rage, or insanity, then it is clear rational change will not come, at least not in our lifetimes, and it is precisely because we are a democracy with 50 state legislatures and three branches of government.

The Economist's character limit prevents a nuanced discussion but I’ll try since you asked important questions about fighting government tyranny by the use of arms and non-violence.
There are two important examples of "bearings arms" for democracy in American colonial & early US history: the American war of independence (1776-1789) and the War of 1812, both involved bearing arms to protect Americans against British tyranny.
Guns were later used by Americans and new immigrants as they ventured west to settle land, encouraged by presidents, governors, F. Jackson Turner, and Horace Greeley, and countless others. We could discuss, and rightly so, in historical context the "American genocide by gun of Native Americans" as the settlers went west. Another time?
The American "gun culture" and confidence that individuals and groups can prevail in the face of overwhelming odds were etched in the national psyche during the colonial and frontier eras. This confidence was also reflected by the pacifist Quakers, and later the Amish.
In fact, non-violence has always been at the core of American reform movements -- against the tyranny of government.
Consider the successes of the abolitionists, the provocative and non-violent women's suffrage movement (1848-1920), the voting and civil rights Act of 1965 and the anti-war movements. Today we see that same peaceful confidence in the gay rights movement.
The US also experienced massive non-violent marches on Washington during the Great Depression, Civil Rights and the anti-war marches from 1960s-1980s. Even during the Iraq War grandmothers marched through midtown Manhattan.
Americans have a long history of banding together for the common good against government tyranny, peacefully, and rarely with guns or other violent methods.
The extraordinary exception is the US Civil War, and for some, the Oklahoma City bombing. Much like the Confederacy, McVeigh resented the federal government and considered it a "tyrannical" power that abused states rights.
In some circles, the Civil War is still debated today, with core issues re-emerging in the "small vs. big government" debates and in the rhetoric of the pseudo anti-federalist Tea Party.
Is there tyranny in modern America? President Eisenhower coined the phrase "military industrial complex" for a reason. President Kennedy sent the National Guard to help desegregate the South and protect citizens and civil rights activists facing the overwhelming tyranny of Jim Crow laws.
More recently, it was reported during the 2000 presidential election that state police blocked access to voting booths in the south, and "countless" Floridians were disenfranchised by the state's election officials and the US Supreme Court. Many Americans consider these examples of government tyranny. You may not.
For others, the most egregious and recent examples of tyranny in America are the Patriot Act, rendition and the slow or no justice for Guantanamo detainees.
Can a "gun" or something else be used against American "tyranny"? Some have tried: the Confederacy, J.W. Booth, American Cold War spies, T. McVeigh, T. Kazcynski, J.W. Lindh and US Army soldier Bradley Manning.
History shows non-violence works best for legitimate and lasting reform in the US. Most Americans vote and prefer change through peaceful defiance, legislative petitions and public marches on the important issues.
I ask those who ignore this history and prefer to paint Americans as "gun-toting narcissists" to try and understand and respect that our system of government and culture are different from yours.
We have a Bill of Rights that protects the individual from government tyranny and abuse. This is why the founders debated long and hard about how to create a republic while protecting individual and states rights. The US Civil War was fought over these issues.
Today America is challenged financially, but it continues to balance individual rights with the powers and limits of the federal and state governments. Are there abuses in the three branches of government at the federal and state levels? Yes. Will it get worse? Maybe.
The counter weights to these concerns have always been the US Bill of Rights and the people’s will, expressed through voting, petitioning Congress and state legislators for reform - and direct action. Americans have the democratic mechanisms and the confidence to make change.
Many Americans will agonize over whether gun control can best be legislated and implemented at the state or federal level, if at all.
Rational gun reform will happen and it will reflect America’s tradition of balancing individual rights with the common good.
Americans still believe individuals can and should make a difference - whether by "bearing arms" or not. We can see this expressed by Americans who volunteer and donate to charity. We saw it on September 11, 2001, and we saw it again on Friday when the school principal and staff ran toward gun fire to protect the children.

Of course, the voice of the people is not the voice of God. But the voice of the American people will determine the debate in the US. Whether you consider their views, traditions and laws "rational" is something for you to work out.

That being said, I reckon the people with their legislators will review the criteria for gun ownership and waiting periods for background checks. They won't ban guns.

And yes, the reformers can definitely learn something from the British approach to granting permits and licenses... I wish them luck!

The Patriot Act that's funny. Did people march on D.C., precious guns in their hands to topple that "tyrannic" government? NO. And, I'm sorry, it will never happen in the US. It is so easy to convince the populace there to go along with government plans on "homeland security" (thank you Fox News) that the majority wouldn't notice something is up until a concentration camp is build around the corner. Also, the US is no longer an experiment in democracy (as the current government gridlock illustrates), it's actually stuck in the past (let's not start naming the social issues that are unresolved because neither party wants to compromise). You want a modern experiment in democracy? Go to India (talk about dynamic).

Rachel, I thank you for your erudite and civil response. I would be delighted to discuss this further with you you at another time if I were not sure that you have worthier opponents than me. :-)

I understand that the right to bear arms is symbolic of a more general belief in a civic independence of government. This is perhaps one major difference between Britain and America (although rural France has to a lesser degree perhaps a similar sense of itself)

Swords in Britain are also symbols and are blunt. I believe that the right to bear arms needs to be replaced by the celebration of those acts of heroism (perhaps of bradley manning's) that really are effective disruptors of tyranny. Yes! The fight against tyranny continues and gladly will I stand by your side in the barricade, but not with a gun.

Of course. Cannonfire doesn't work very well against Hellfire missiles.

But here's where you're misrepresenting a popular uprising. Al Qaeda is an international special interests organization: the Taliban, the United Somali Congress, Hamas, and The Free Syrian Army are all patchwork popular movements that have stood against conventional militaries with regularity and have proven successful. The American Revolution was not just fought with the money of the son of an architecture magnate.

Nobody said that gun owners are the sole source of a popular movement. They are simply a part of the population.

In my opinion what the author meant to say was that it is no longer possible, with the amount of firepower and the amount of control a government has over the people, for "lone, heroic individuals" to fight for democracy and to realistically think that individuals can overthrow a tyrannical government is narcissism. It is not a question of the British not understanding why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule, it is a question of the British not understanding how sensible people cannot see the numerous fallacies in the idea that individuals can hope to overthrow the most powerful government in the world.

I do not share your view that rational change will come. I hope that you are right, that the limitations in the 2nd Amendment turn into some restraint on gun ownership. But I tend to agree with many thoughtful articles that I have read that the lack of action over the recurrent massacres in America is a moral choice - that we as a tyranny fearful people (count me out of that - the experiment is long over) are simply willing to pay the price of broad access to guns with the lives lost in shootings such as Newtown. We will pray, wail, bemoan this tragic loss of young lives (with genuine grief) and then will do nothing. Apparently fearing governmental tyranny more than the recurrent and real tyranny that can be conjured by one person armed guns with assault capability in a mall, school, hospital, and so on.

Tyranny - you got that from you college textbook. Compare that Tyranny to Stalin's or Saddam Hussein. We had British troops in COURT back then being defended by no less than John Adams. Some tyranny.
I despair sometimes of my fellow American's mystical lack of education as to our real history.

"Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776"
- In case you haven't noticed, we are now living in the year 2012 (that's 236 years on, in case you're wondering). The "rational change" you refer to, seems to be taking some time. In the mean time, "lone individuals" (who may think they're "heroic") continue to carry out these dreadful massacres.

Connecticut has some of the most restrictive anti-gun legislation there is on the books. Yet these laws did little to protect the citizenry. Politicians love to have signings for new anti-gun laws in the presence of tearful shooting victim's families and pontificate "we're finally doing something about gun violence"....until the next shooting. The fallacy of gun legislation is only law abiding citizens obey them! These are NOT the ones who cause the mayhem! You say on one hand the answer is to remove guns from society, (leaving us at the mercy of an armed government), even though guns are ubiquitous! Then you turn around and say we must legalize drugs because THEY are ubiquitous and cannot be eliminated without drastic measures! Are not guns as ubiquitous as drugs? Or is it only that the lefties at the Economist Like drugs but dislike guns?

Things have moved on a bit. The real safeguards against tyranny are a free press, an independent judiciary, a non-political armed forces and democratic checks and balances preventing the excessive accumulation of power by any one group. "lone heroic individuals" would be hopelessly outmatched in the face of tyranny if a well trained and equipped military such as the American armed forces were to turn against them.

I too commend the author's deference. And i understand and admire the actions of those who rose against the tyranny of George III and gave birth to one of America's many great founding stories. Part of my own country's history was built on misguided actions by the British in regard to their colonial possessions around the same time - to "transport" petty criminals to the other side of the world. But it's as hard to imagine a truly tyrannical US government today as it is to imagine an Irishman being sent to Australia for stealing handkerchiefs. And it's even harder to imagine how an Iowan or a Floridian owning a semi-automatic rifle would make much difference anyway.
An (erroneous?) reading of the constitution resulting in 300 million weapons being held by private individuals to protect against potential state tyranny looks to the outsider like a very 18th century response to a pretty remote risk. I hope, on behalf of all past and future gun violence victims, that the majority of Americans see this anachronism one day too. But like the Economist's correspondent, for now, I'm just sad and gloomy.

I think the American view of democracy and your view of democracy is different. The right to bear arms ensures democracy. It gives the ultimate power to the citizens, not the government. Every vote can be backed by arms and therefore keep the government in check from doing things against the will of the majority.

Rational change won't come-and Lexington is right on the mark about how stupid and narcissistic Americans are on this subject. The argument that the second amendment guarantees the Constitution is a flawed one from the start.

Guns prevent many crimes, and very few gun homocides are related to incidents that gun control could prevent.
The organised criminals of America are armed and they will not be disarming. Responsible citizens have a duty to defend their communities.

Sorry but that sounds awfully smug and complacent. Seems to me that Americans have proved themselves to be content with the idea that the deaths of many innocent people annually, including - frequently - children is a price their society is prepared to pay for the principle, or possibly the illusion, that they are each in control of their own destiny and liberty when armed. It's entirely up to them what they do in their own country of course but I am very glad it is not a choice we have made in mine.

Thank You! Patriot Act and National Security Letter (Look it up) how the FBI abused it on numerous occasions. One would never think this could be possible in this country, but guess what it is another example how the Gov abuses its powers. Gov takes over once fear takes over the public :)

Lexington: "I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception."
.
Rachel Cunningham: "Rational change will come -- decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government. And that's as it should be."
.
Well, Rachel, I liked the fact that Lexington stuck his neck out a tad. Rational change decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government will not come without a few necks being stuck out a little more than those of our English-speaking tribe, Cunninghams or not, whose memories are stuck in the conditions, , as if they constituted a holocaust, of colonists 236 years ago.

"United" is the key word, Rachel. All those individuals came together, to form the Continental Army. In peacetime, it became a militia, hence the wording of the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia...etc" The Supreme Court recently decided in its wisdom that the Founders meant to confer an individual right to keep and bear firearms. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, also said that the Government could regulate the ownership of firearms. That wd be a start, and ammunition doesn't feature in the amendment, so regulating ammo wd be a good place to begin. I've seen a lot of rhetoric about how possessing firearms defends us from tyranny -- but how did it defend us from the Patriot Act?

I like the United States in many aspects, but for whatever historical reasons, a country where many people like you say that 'The American republic is still very much an "experiment" worth keeping an eye out for tyranny' and where it is very easy to get guns is 'barbarian'. The problem of America is that there are so many uneducated people without any international perspective. Americans should understand that the US common sense of the right to possess guns is the world 'uncommon' sense. They should also understand that because of many gun tragedies, people around the world perceive America in a more and more negative manner.

And that is the crux of the narcissism, the belief that one is exceptional and thus beyond normal constraints.

Too much of the American debate is mired in mythologized romanticism of the past tinged with a borrowed religious reverence for the long dead saints of the long ago revolution.

Plenty of others understand rebellion against Monarchs, Oligarchs and Plutocrats and the world is littered with revolutions, past and present which is neither new nor exceptional nor an experiment, a shining city on a hill or the hope of mankind.

They get over it, move on and adapt to a changing society.

Unfortunately a narcissist just can't get over themselves and find it hard understand why others can't share in that.

If rational change is still awaiting a collective solution of 50 legislatures and three branches of federal government 237 years into the experiment or from a legislature incapable of agreeing on even an annual budget, them just maybe your faith in the process is misplaced.

As with alcoholism, the first step is to admit to oneself what is plain to everyone around you, that you have an addiction.

"Rational change will come -- decided by the people, 50 state legislatures and the three branches of federal government. And that's as it should be."
I'm not sure that I share your optimism about the rationality and any near- or mid-term response. Even if change does come, the wait will be excruciatingly long and many more people will die before any change results in a measurable effect. Connecting the dots between policy changes and statistics is not something that our system seems to be very good at doing, particularly if the learning horizon required to do so is long.

Six people a week stabbed on the streets of Britain each week. 203 IN U.S. THUS FAR 2012. Approximately 115 per day die in car accidents every day on american roads, 369,629 PREVENTABLE DEATHS between 2001-2009, car ban ANYONE. It's pretty obvious that this is not about saving people by banning guns. The question is,what is it about? The nra makes lots of sense,Train and arm the teachers, staff and administration of the schools these things will not happen. It's obvious these people, killers, do not want a gun fight and thanks to our law breaking law makers they have many available places to do this kind of sick damage and become t.v. stars after death. Only people living in a bubble cannot see that the police CANNOT AVAILABLE TO SAVE YOU. The criminals don't want a gun fight and avoid the known gun holders (police). Arm the school staff and every other non-criminal person on the street. "Armed society=Polite society. Do your own research people the information is available. Stop listening to the talking bought and paid for talking heads who want to lead you away from common sense....

I can't speak for the restrictiveness of Connecticut's laws compared to others in the US, but on the whole, the US "citizenry" has had little protection from these horrible incidents despite having the loosest gun laws in the industrialized world

Singapore has very strict laws against firearms possession. It is illegal to possess any offensive weapons which includes not only the usual assault rifles and pistols and bullets but also any form weapons such air guns even fake weapons if they appear to be real and slingshots.

It is a very safe city for all that and any infrequent robbery or homicide cases, at worse only knives are involved but never firearms. My point is that if f the thieves and robbers do not use guns, then there's no need for citizenry to own one too.

If you really want America to be safe, ban private possession and ownership of firearms altogether and proscribe severe punishment for infringements. It is an absurd argument to say that the private ownership of weapons is not the problem but that evil people are. But Whilst a person armed with a knife can injure only a handful of people, one armed with an automatic rifle can kill hundreds. Take away all the guns and you will not such a problem anymore.

The only issue is whether the American people have the political will to be able to come together and be united enough to ban guns altogether. If not be prepared for another round of senseless shooting to come around again anytime or anywhere in the future. Would the gun advocate still hold his ground if someone close to him or her is hurt in the next incident?

... "our system of government and culture are different from yours" -- indeed, they are. As well, they are neither admirable, nor enviable. Paranoia is a poor basis upon which to frame social policy. So too, the socio-political environment of the late eighteenth century which seems to pervade and persist as a driver of American social thought -- a cage from which citizens of the USA cannot, or wish not, to escape.

Still an experiment? What kind of experiment has ever had the capacity to project all aspects of its power, from cultural to militarily, across a vast global expanse, pretty much define two centuries of human history, and whose elections matter to just about every single human being on the planet. Get over yourself. America's frontier closed well over a 100 years ago, since then it has reshaped countries as ancient as Germany and Japan in its own image, and its people live as comfortable an existence as anyone at any point in history could ever have imagined. Your guns are a strange cultural obsession. Nothing more.

I beg to differ with your deified view on American 'narcissism'. I'm afraid it's got more to do with selfish, self-absorbed & self-serving human frailties than those heroic & esoteric sentiments that you allude to. Get rid of those rose-tinted shades!

I beg to differ with your deified & romantic view on American 'narcissism'. I'm afraid it's got more to do with the epedemic of selfish, self-absorbed & sef-serving (sub)human frailties plaguing the land, than those 'heroic' & esoteric sentiments that you allude to. Get rid of your rose-tinted shades!

With all due respect to the "lone heroic individuals" of 1776 - the world has changed since then. Neither is Queen Elizabeth II about to regain control of the U.S.A., nor would any country that really were in a position to challenge the U.S.A.'s independence choose weapons that revolvers and submachine guns would be any use against.
I am happy to live in a country where gun control is efficient, and I am convinced the U.S.A. would be a safer and generally better country for its own citizens to live in if it had ca. 280.000 fewer guns in private hands - but it's your business, U.S. citizens, not mine.

Well said. That the British Empire of George III found (to their sorrow) that Americans were a "people numerous and armed" should prompt us to temper any advice about "gun control" that originates from our cousins across the pond.

"Gun control" isbasically an effective way to keep the means of self defense out of the hands of honest citizens -- ensuring that police and criminals have a duopoly on the means of violence. Those who believe that the police can be trusted unreservedly should consider (a) the Rodney King incident, and (b) hesitant responses by law enforcement to Columbine and other incidents.

Two thoughts for what to do. How about making non-lethal self defense more readily available to all -- especially the staffs of elementary schools? How about more supervision (and institutionalization) of those who are diagnosed as clinically dangerous? Both would have some unintended damage -- but much less than the damage from disarming the entire population.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the violent crime rate in Britain is the highest in Europe an is at least 2-3 times higher than the US. Guns need to be part of the discussion, but there are other things that need to be discussed as well. Perhaps This may sound a bit trit to some, but our Constitution starts with "We the people", not "We the government.". Even in English common law is the concept that an individual has the right to self defense.

The "contradiction" you speak of can be sorted out thusly: Sometimes democracies can stop being democracies; they can become oppressive and tyrannical. Government does not have your best interests at heart, they have no reason to. Rational argument and persuasion does not always prevail over government power. Even a cursory survey of world history illuminates this fact. Therefore government needs to be checked in various means legal, constitutional, and forceful. If the government can possess and use guns (i.e.. the police and military) to enforce their power, then it stands to reason that people should be allowed the same tools to counter that power.
Moreover, concerning your apparent skepticism of people being able to take up arms and prevail against the government; that really depends on what you consider “prevail” to mean. That can simply mean expelling the oppressive government or force as the American colonists or the Viet Cong did in their respective times. In both case they fought the most power government on Earth and prevailed not by defeating them but by convincing them to end their aggression. Also, the drama of rebelling with arms drew world attention and sympathy from other parts of the world to the respective causes that in turn placed political and social pressure on the aggressive governments to end their actions. Therefore armed rebellion, or the threat of it to government, is a complex, nuanced dynamic and not the simplistic Rambo or redneck mentality that so many suppose. If you really believe in the principles of a constitution then you are willing to take up arms to defend and preserve it. Not a contradiction at all.

'Thank you for your thoughtful deference. Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776.'
And your point is? That the mass killings of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown and so forth are a fair price to pay for your independence?
I still fail to be impressed by the way American conservatives base their arguments on a transposition of the present into the past.
I've got news for you, Rachel: this is 2012, not 1776. George III is dead. The USA's independence is not threatened and, as strange as it may seem to you, those kids did not die for it.

> What kind of experiment has ever had the capacity to project all aspects of its power, from cultural to militarily, across a vast global expanse, pretty much define two centuries of human history, and whose elections matter to just about every single human being on the planet.
So? Just because it made a big splash doesn't mean it didn't stop becoming an experiment.

How short your memories are. I'm a Texan."Come and take it."
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Nothing in any country is "decided by the people." That's the kind of terminology folks like Fidel Castro and Mussolini use. America is a republic. It's never been a democracy, and we have no control over what is decided in Washington. Leaders like to throw around words like democracy and freedom to gain support, and never have any inkling of an intention to actually do the will of the people. There's no real sense in debating issues like gun control until election time. It's pointless.

"King George would have won if he had predator drones and Seal Team 6."

A strange statement, following the US pullout from Iraq, and its preparations for exiting Afghanistan to an increasingly effective Taliban opposition, in the midst of nearly daily killings of US and allied troops by 'plants' among those being trained to replace them. The Taliban and anti-US Iraqi resistance laugh at your naivete.

A good discussion of an "agent-focused" analysis of mass-murder risk: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/12/18/white-lightning/ -
For the crazy white guy, firearms seem almost incidental. In fact in the worst cases of mass murder, they are not even used. Andrew Kehoe blew up 42 people in a school with dynamite, including 39 children, in 1927. Timothy McVeigh killed “168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others” with explosive made from fertilizer. Jim Jones, killed 909 people by convincing them to drink poisoned Kool-Aid out of buckets. He only used firearms to kill Congressman Leo Ryan who had arrived to investigate the Jonestown site.

No guns in Japan? No problem. Shoko Asahara and his disciples manufactured sarin in a homemade laboratory to kill 13 people in the Tokyo subway. No guns in Europe? No problem. Anders Breivik killed 77 and injured 242 people by legally obtaining guns and manufacturing home-made explosives in Norway.

And of course, lest anyone forget, the September 11 attackers killed nearly 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000 people using box cutters obtainable for a few dollars you can buy from any craft store. The crazy white boy’s major weapon is his mind, very often magnified by a high level of education.

Intelligence was something that Breivik, McVeigh, Jones, Holmes, Lanza and Bin Laden apparently had plenty of. They gamed their attacks, maintained operational security and even created trails of disinformation. Lanza has for example even destroyed his computer to conceal his motives from the police even after his death. He’s so far ahead of the cops they can’t even begin to understand why he did it. Asahara’s men had a light automatic weapons manufacturing department and even possessed antidotes for sarin. The school-bomber Kehoe tried his devices out on farm animals for size. Breivik even started a farm to buy fertilizer to concoct explosives.

Once you start looking at mass killings from a person-centered point of view your security model changes. The worst serial killer in British history — you know the Britain without guns — was Dr. Harold Shipman, MD, who killed more than 250 people. The biggest mass murders were committed without guns for the simple reason that guns are a poor choice for mass killing. Poison, fire, explosives, big kinetic objects or as in the case of Dr. Shipman — trust — were much more efficient killers.

The disadvantage of guns is they have to be aimed and their report warns other victims of potential danger. These deficiencies mean firearms are only capable of substantial mass killing when used in conjunction with favorable topology. Anders Breivik could shoot a lot of people because they were cooped up on an island. Similarly Lanza and Holmes exploited the confines of a theater or a classroom to obtain their effect. No favorable topology, no mass killing capability.

You suggest the mode that was effective to fight tyrants over 200 years ago in America would still be effective today. In many ways, we have come too far as a society and we are too morally liable for gross generalisations such as your own to be relevant any longer.

Obviously you feel this Right is NOT worth the cost. Lets set aside the fact that the Constitution, (contrary to popular belief & yours as well), did NOT bestow this Right. And gun ownership is NOT a “privilege” as you would imply. Nor is this a Right of our own making. The 2nd Amd CONFIRMED gun ownership as a PREXISTING RIGHT, stating; it “shall NOT BE INFRINGED”. As it pre-existed the writing of the Bill of Rights, it is by definition NOT of our own making. Perhaps this seems to be picking “Legal Nits”. Sorry, but I am an attorney & these “nits” are significant. But that said; you would obviously change the Constitution. So, with reference to Article 5; (suggest you read it & hopefully understand political demographics of the US), how do you propose to affect such a change? I’m sure many readers here would like to know. Perhaps you have ideas not yet considered.

We read: "Thank you for your thoughtful deference. Your comment about American "narcissism" reflects a commonly held British view that indicates they still don't understand why "lone, heroic individuals" united to fight colonial rule under King George III in 1776. The American republic is still very much an "experiment" worth keeping an eye out for tyranny."

That is indeed, the commonly held American view. But Americans in fact never lived under tyranny. They were governed under British common law and saw fit to rebel only when faced with having to contribute to the costs of the Royal Navy that had swept the seas clean of the French and Spanish fleets that had threatened their liberties since white settlement. They rebelled against their protecting power only because it was safe to do so, and they could avert the costs of having had their liberties defended at British taxpayer expense. The "heroic individuals" included the traitors George Washington and Benjamin Franklin who actively subverted the rightful government, murdered its agents and drove out the United Empire Loyalist Americans to Canada. The revolutionaries deserved separate hanging, but sadly, they won, thereby splitting the Anglo-Saxon world, and keeping their slaves for two generations after the air of England was decreed by a British judge to be "too pure for slaves to breathe".

Thank you for that Rachel. You just provided a voice to the "actual" silent majority of Americans. The brits are sheep and always will be, sorry for the disrespect but its true. This guy has the balls to utter the word narcissism.

There is not a single quote, journal entry, letter, or speech by any of the founding fathers of the US that contains anything but support for armed citizens. George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were all very much "pro-gun" leaders. The last time an armed government attempted to confiscate American guns was at Concord and Lexington... which led to a full on, armed rebellion.

There is not a single quote, journal entry, letter, or speech by any of the founding fathers of the US that contains anything but support for armed citizens. George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson were all very much "pro-gun" leaders. The last time an armed government attempted to confiscate American guns was at Concord and Lexington... which led to a full on, armed rebellion.

you are all delusional - America, UK - the NWO is coming and they want you unarmed to make it easier for them. The banks own us, the world is running out of resources, and you think the people in control are really looking out for you. Our govt are now the puppets of much more dangerous organizations. They represent the banks, themselves, their maintaining control, the corporations - you and I may think we have their ear once in a while...but we are wrong.
NWO is coming - if you dont farm, if you dont arm, you will most likely be killed by the so called "caring governments"

It's amazing that people maintain the worldview that disarming the public is a rational business. A professor of the university of Hawaii performed a research analysis and computed that states had murdered approximately 120,000,000 of their own people in the 20th century. This figure vastly outnumbers even the most exaggerated estimates of individual homicides and mass shootings. Collectivism is dangerous because the democratic will can quickly descend into factionalism; this is where we get our genocides and ethnic cleansing and civil wars. Individuality is the only way for a peaceful future, and ensuring that citizens are armed is a crucial component of holding a government accountable. But you people and your passions and nonthinking and pathos-driven arguments; you're unable to see the big picture because you want a world that mankind isn't capable of providing.

It's amazing that people maintain the worldview that disarming the public is a rational business. A professor of the university of Hawaii performed a research analysis and computed that states had murdered approximately 120,000,000 of their own people in the 20th century. This figure vastly outnumbers even the most exaggerated estimates of individual homicides and mass shootings. Collectivism is dangerous because the democratic will can quickly descend into factionalism; this is where we get our genocides and ethnic cleansing and civil wars. Individuality is the only way for a peaceful future, and ensuring that citizens are armed is a crucial component of holding a government accountable. But you people and your passions and nonthinking and pathos-driven arguments; you're unable to see the big picture because you want a world that mankind isn't capable of providing.

The author forgets that owning a firearm is enshrined in our constitution, which is to be followed with a Koran-like devotion... never to be questioned in its blind adherence (to the letter and not the intent)

And fervently supported by our toothless, uneducated, fellow-citizens, living in bunkers

If it were followed to the letter, Americans would be allowed to own anti-tank missiles and 105mm howitzers, which would be useful for overthrowing a tyrannical government, but would be prohibited from owning side-aarms, which have no military value, and are useful only for murder and suicide.

Suggestion: emigrate to a polity more in line with your fine sensibilities, where constitutions are regularly re-written according to the zeitgeist of the day. Venezuela, perhaps, or Bolivia. You would no doubt be happier there.

It's insane that in the US we treat gun ownership as a rights issue. It is clearly a public health and safety issue. The question should not be 'do we have the right to own a gun', but 'does the ownership of guns make for a safer society'.

Yes, I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making, it far past time to step back and decide whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost.

Absolutely agree with you - Thanks for your post. I reposted on my FB page. Here's Excerpt from Article: "As for the National Rifle Association bumper stickers arguing that only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny, I wonder if that isn’t a form of narcissism, involving the belief that lone, heroic individuals will have the ability to identify tyranny as it descends, recognise it for what it is, and fight back. There is also the small matter that I don’t think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule." The Economist - Gun Control: The gun control that works - no guns.

Our rights are NOT "the priveleges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law". Our rights our unaleinable as bestowed on us by our Creator. The Constitution defines the limits of Government, and the Bill of Rights further emphasizes certain unalienable rights that are not to be infringed upon.

Asking for, in advance, forgiveness for this pun: you are a bit wrong on the definition of rights. They are not the things you call privileges and freedoms which our laws create for ourselves. This error leads you to believe that the “Fundamental Rights” in the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution are the same sort of thing that an entitlement to health care or social insurance are. However the set of rights conceived before the US government was formed are super-rights. They are constraints against power the democratic process might create against the sovereign individual.
Thus in the case of the ever controversial first and second amendments, a popularly elected but perhaps tyrannical or egregiously protective government, cannot suppress political speech to further the ends of social tranquility or form an absolute monopoly on armed force to reduce the danger in daily life. So a citizen’s political discourse, perhaps offensive to practitioners of some religion and a citizen’s power to defend his life against any lethal assault, cannot be suppressed
The process of changing these super-rights are themselves subject to the power of a meta-right, the rigorous and clearly articulated process of Constitutional Amendment. The value of such a rigorous process is that passion, misinformation, and self-interest can be filtered when exposed to deliberate, lengthy and open analysis and debate.

Yes, it is quite correct that the gun-ownership debate should be framed, not in terms of "rights", but in terms of public health and safetly. And yet, once the question is put in these terms, the answer is still not obvious. I am agnostic on the question, but it seems to me that one of the most exhaustive and serious studies done on the relation of gun crime rates to gun ownership is John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". However, Lott's study is only specific to the US - European cases seem to indicate a different correlation, leading one perhaps to conclude that Lott's demonstrated correlation between private gun ownership and low crime rates only applies to societies, like the US, where guns are already heavily present.

" ...rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law." - Fizboz

Entirely of our own making? Not so.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." - The Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776

Has outlawing certain drugs prevented anyone from using them? What about when alcohol was made illegal? Would the outlawing of knives make for a safer society? There is a deeper root to the issues we face today: morality.

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Galatians five : fourteen

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -3rd President of the United States, John Adams

Those who are immoral in the first place will not abide by any new laws. Those who would abide by the laws will thus be rendered powerless when confronted by someone armed and with evil intentions. In other words, "bad guys", burglars, thieves, terrorists, and such will go around any law, seeing they plan to brake law in the end. Meanwhile, take the means of protection from responsible people, and the criminals have the upper hand!

"We do not need to get good laws to restrain bad people. We need to get good people to restrain us from bad laws."
— G.K. Chesterton

"good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws"
— Plato

We need not shirk from the US Constitution; it reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let's ask ourselves this; are guns "well regulated" in this country? I think not. Let's ask ourselves, what is a militia and are these insane individuals that are shooting our children card-carrying members? Uh...no. And exactly how is gun ownership adding to the security of the state? Short answer, it probably did in 1786 when we were still afraid of the red-coats or a young and unstable government, but today? Not so much. Gun ownership destroys the very thing it purports to protect - security.

There is a "horrible cost" associated with having only armed governments. That cost was 6 million Jews and several million others by the Nazi socialists, 15 million Ukraines by the Soviets, 40-60 millions of Chinese by Mao's agarian reformers, Many thosands more all over the globe by UN sponcered mercenaries just in the LAST century. What more is to come when none of us are armed? Owning guns is not about hunting or even so much about personal defence. It IS, as the founders saw it, our main bulwalk against tyranny. Be ever so careful what you ask for, in this age of confusion, you may get it.

Constitutions are dynamic, and should serve the people of the times, and future, not the past. The interpretation given to the constitution's second ammenment currently is NOT in the national interest. It is past time for gun control laws. This is yet another sad, awful, tragic, glaring example.

This is a common, yet very poor argument floating around against gun control...
1. Is there really any danger of the government of the United States suddenly turning against its citizens? Fantastical conspiracy theory nonsense or purely hypothetical pap.
2. If, for some bizarre, sci-fi reason this ever happened, do you really think that the ownership of small arms by a disorganized public is going to stop the best equipped most modern army in the world?
The second amendment is far out of date and step with the modern world. The founding fathers were intelligent enlightenment men, but they were not capable of predicting the path of history and legislating for every contingency.

Rights and laws are entirely of our own making... laws are written by people, enforced by governments over societies. A 'creator' had nothing at all to do with it, unless you believe that this being somehow felt it necessary to bestow the right on Americans to shoot each other but withheld it from the English...

There is no such thing as an unalienable right. That is a poetic term to describe those things which we value so highly we believe that they should be universally and eternally applied (although they were not for women nor African slaves when those words were written...).

Statist glorification of the Constitution as if it were a document that existed outside of time with eternal, unchallenged truths is unbelievably wrong-headed and very likely against the desires of the founding fathers who created it. The constitution should not be changed lightly, but like any living document representative of societies hopes, dreams and fears, it should evolve with the people it guides.

Since the widespread ownership of guns has proven NOT to be an effective way of ensuring your 'right to live' and has, in fact, been a greater impediment to your ability to stay alive, then your 'right to live' is actually being harmed by the 2nd Amendment. Another good reason to change it.

You are unaware of the statistics showing that for every firearms homicide in the US, there are a great many more crimes -prevented- by armed citizens. Those crimes range from robbery and mugging through rape and aggravated assault up to murder.

Against a larger, stronger assailant, or against multiple assailants, a firearm may well be the only hope of prevailing.

You keep referring to the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter, I have the right of effective self defense regardless of what any law says.

It is such a huge misconception that "the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. The Constitution speaks of this right only in the context of "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the common defense." It is time for us to place the "right" in the context for which it was created. The Constitution never advocated a blanket free for all on gun ownership.

It is such a huge misconception that "the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. The Constitution speaks of this right only in the context of "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the common defense." It is time for us to place the "right" in the context for which it was created. The Constitution never advocated a blanket free for all on gun ownership.

The very distinction between rights and other freedoms is that rights cannot be granted nor removed by human law. Human institutions can violate or respect the rights of individuals, but they cannot remove them.
We have a right to defend ourselves, including from our rulers. Yes, that may put even the shooter in greater danger, but that isn't the point. This is a matter of right and wrong, and of setting precedent by taking a stand - which is for the benefit of not just you but also your countrymen and indeed the human race. Safety is at best a secondary concern.

This issue is a rights issue. I do believe in gun control but believe that it needs to be approached intelligently. I also beleive that we should limit those who opine on our society to those who understand it. For the author to compare the US to Britain and imply that a 'no guns' policy would work in our environment is an ignorant comment. Does Britain have areas where bears roam their property? Do they share a massive border with a country where heavily armed drug lords traverse their property armed with assault rifles? Do they have farmers that need to fend off the occasional coyote while working on their property? I agree that we should not have assault rifles in cities. However, I also think that citizens should have the right to protect themselves if need be. And good luck recruiting police officers if you tell them they cannot carry.

My wife and I were just talking about this issue. We started with "you know, this never happened when we were kids". So what's changed? Not access to guns. Gun control has become more severe. In fact Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. One thing that comes to mind is that the media now sensationalizes these mentally disturbed people. Another is cuts in spending to treat the mentally ill. Is our focus perhaps a little misguided?

To those who would like to delete or seriously alter the 2nd Amendment, I would say the same thing that I tell the anti-immigrant folks who dislike the 14th Amendment: If that's what you want then you need to get busy on amending the Constitution, but you'd better pack a lunch because it ain't gonna be easy. First you need a super majority of 66% from both houses of Congress to vote it out to the states, then it has to be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures. That sound too tough? Well, it's tough for a reason, which is that most proposed amendments are pretty dumb and our Constitution is better off without them.

We can have tougher gun laws without eviscerating our basic law. Close the gun show/private sale loophole. Require that the Psychiatric profession report their patients to the FBI so that they can be placed on the No Purchase list - a move that will do much more to prevent suicide than homicide, by the way. And at the same time improve our lousy mental health treatment. Will this cost some money? Uh huh....just do it anyway.

Rights, by definition, are actually quite the opposite of "privileges," and the part of according them by law is a dangerous proposition as well. "Rights" aren't just things that we make up as we go - they are intrinsic to human existence. Our recognition of them in legal documents is not to say that we created them. The negative rights construction of our constitution illustrates the opposite: that our rights exist, and government (something that we did create) cannot infringe upon them. The right to self defense inherent in the 2nd Amendment is one such right. The gun, however, is merely a tool. In much the same way that pens do not miraculously create poetry, guns do not create violence outside of human action upon them. As such, demonizing the tool, rather than the people who use it, places the cart before the horse.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Maybe my glasses are just funny, but it doesn't seem like such a misconception to me. It looks a lot more like plain and simple English.

The context of the militia, however, is well noted. A militia, in the 1780's, was a group of free landowning males who, without government training or permission, protected their lands and homes from violent incursions from external powers. Inherent in such an understanding is the right to self-defense, not merely common or communal defense. The gun is a tool of self-defense (and communal defense, for that matter). The reason why this provision was added was because the British did not allow private citizens to own muskets - which were considered the tool of war at the time. This was done to cement colonial authority. Therefore, the phrase "keep and bear arms" ABSOLUTELY considers the issue of gun ownership, and protects the right of the public to do so.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Maybe my glasses are just funny, but it doesn't seem like such a misconception to me. It looks a lot more like plain and simple English.

The context of the militia, however, is well noted. A militia, in the 1780's, was a group of free landowning males who, without government training or permission, protected their lands and homes from violent incursions from external powers. Inherent in such an understanding is the right to self-defense, not merely common or communal defense. The gun is a tool of self-defense (and communal defense, for that matter). The reason why this provision was added was because the British did not allow private citizens to own muskets - which were considered the tool of war at the time. This was done to cement colonial authority. Therefore, the phrase "keep and bear arms" ABSOLUTELY considers the issue of gun ownership, and protects the right of the public to do so.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to *keep and bear* arms shall not be infringed." Maybe my glasses are just funny, but it doesn't seem like such a misconception to me. It looks a lot more like plain and simple English.

The context of the militia, however, is well noted. A militia, in the 1780's, was a group of free landowning males who, without government training or permission, protected their lands and homes from violent incursions from external powers. Inherent in such an understanding is the right to self-defense, not merely common or communal defense. The gun is a tool of self-defense (and communal defense, for that matter). The reason why this provision was added was because the British did not allow private citizens to own muskets - which were considered the tool of war at the time. This was done to cement colonial authority. Therefore, the phrase "keep and bear arms" unequivocally and incontrovertibly considers the issue of gun ownership, and protects the right of the public to do so. Any other interpretation would be simply inconsistant with both the construction and jurisprudence relating to this most fundamental of rights.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people... best solution is to outlaw people, but then who would buy all those wonderful guns?

Yes, guns are tools, the problem is that they are tools that allow people to kill in mass numbers with relative ease. Since we can't outlaw crazy or careless, can we at least make it harder for them to kill?

Your argument is very noble, but sadly unrealistic. Those who seek to hurt others don't need guns to do act out their intentions, as demonstrated by the atrocity in China on Friday. It's very easy to kill people with cars or chemicals, but we don't see many people on the White House lawn arguing to outlaw bleach and ammonia. The fact of the matter is that the focus is misplaced, concerning the tool, rather than the person who uses it.

It's obvious that the legal ramifications of violent actions aren't an important consideration in the minds of a crazed criminal. They don't follow the law to begin with, so a law that would stop them from legally obtaining a gun simply sends them off to obtain one illegally. Those gun laws do, however, make it difficult for those among the vast number of non-violent gun owners from obtaining the tools they need to defend themselves from these criminal scum. A world without guns is a beautiful sentiment - nearly as beautiful as a world without the need for them. Unfortunately, it's a naive position. Crazy, dangerous, stupid, and evil have always, and will always exist in this world, and rational people should be allowed any and all tools at their disposal to protect themselves and their families from it. In a world where the average police response time is 8 minutes, and the average instance of gun violence lasts mere seconds, limiting the ability for people to lawfully defend themselves is simply irresponsible and dangerous.

You're right: we can't outlaw crazy or careless, but we *can* create a legal framework that recognizes that an individual's right to privacy in medical concerns may not always be paramount to the public's interest in safety. Those of us in the Greater Newtown, CT area are now all too familiar with the consequences of not appropriately dealing with a very sick individual who had access to some pretty dangerous weapons. But make no mistake: the weapons this monster ultimately used aren't the *cause* of the violence. To argue that the gun is the common denominator in these instances is to confuse causality and correlation. The root cause in every instance of the gun violence we've faced over the past few years is our inability to deal with people who, as a result of their mental problems, pose a very serious threat to the people around them until, like last Friday, it's too late. Instead of outlawing a tool, that can be used for good or evil, let's work toward keeping evil off our streets and in the places where the law can adequately protect us from it. To paraphrase Thoreau, let's not hack away at the limbs of this tree of violence: let's strike the root.

People killed in Connecticut by deranged lunatic with access to rapid fire guns: 26, people killed in China by deranged lunatic with access only to a knife: 0.

The 'let's strike at the root' argument is classic avoidance. People like to drive fast, so setting reasonable speed limits will lead to fewer fatal accidents. Speed limits infringe on my right to drive recklessly fast. Rather than set speed limits, let's get at the root of the problem and make people want to go slow.

Who cares if guns are the 'cause' of the violence or not? No reliable statistics have shown any sort of consistent relationship between gun ownership and the prevalence of crime - nor, by the way, have they shown any evidence of gun ownership and the prevention of crime...

The availability of guns in this country give people who want to kill others easy access and opportunity to do so. And no, bombs are not easier... bomb blasts are less likely to be successfully carried out, more likely to kill the perpetrator, rarely ever used to commit suicide or in the heat of passion.

The case for gun ownership at all is tenuous with little / no statistical grounding, but there simply is no good argument to allow private ownership of rapid fire weapons...

I think that gun ownership does make society safer. I live in an area of America that it is required by law to own a gun, and it has been this way for along time. And since 1970-2011 there have been only 2 gun related deaths, both took place in a school zone where there was no guns allowed.
Then there is the point of if you do manage to take all 300million+ guns away that are in the hands of private owners, people will find other ways to commit crimes. Yes gun violence my go down but stabbings will go up or baseball bats ect, you get my point.
Im a "gun person" what I promote is proper use of guns and gun safety. I have been taught this ever since I was a kid handling a gun.
Yes i agree with you it is a privilege and if it is handled properly there should be no horrible cost. It seems to me people are blaming the gun and not the shooter.
Finally, Guns dont kill people, people kill people

Yes, insane is an understatement here...
Aaah, and the Constitution...The founding fathers lived in a different age, more akin to the wild west than the 21st century and could hardly envision the carnage that a civilian could inflict with a semi-automatic gun in peaceful times. I can't believe that anybody in their right mind still quotes the 2nd amendment as anti gun-control argument. The statistics are overwhelming, crystal clear, there is no doubt that if you decrease access to guns, accidents and the number of murders decrease, how is this not intuitive to everyone. Just look up the statistics of UK, Canada, Australia -- countries that recently enacted stricter gun control laws...These are developed, free thinking prosperous countries!

Fizboz, your passion is really admirable, but while you're more than entitled you your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. There are many reliable studies that point to the fact that gun ownership prevents crime. Look to John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" as a primer for such information. Additionally, look to Switzerland: a nation with roughly 6 million people, 2 million guns, and a rate of gun crime that is so low that statistics aren't even kept. Re: speed limits, those don't work either. In Montana, where they eliminated posted numerical speed limits and instead encouraged motorists to use reason and prudence, fatalities didn't go up, and average speeds stayed about the same. People don't violate speed limits because speed limits are inherently safe, and they want to be unsafe. People drive at *any speed* because they believe it is a safe speed to be travelling at in order to get where they are going.

Moreover, gun laws aren't much like speed limits. A majority of motorists don't obey posted speed limits, but the majority of gun owners *DO* obey gun laws. How is this demonstrated? The average highway speed, from a study conducted by TomTom, was roughly 70mph, 15 mph above Nixon's "55 saves lives." Nearly 47% of American households have a gun, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. Gun violence isn't NEARLY at this rate. The vast, overwhelming majority of guns are purchased legally, and the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners are not ever involved in gun crime. Gun crime, conversely, is usually committed by those who have obtained the weapon illegally (85% of gun crime is committed with a gun purchased illegally), and as such, making it harder to *legally* obtain a gun will solve nothing. It's more akin to drugs than speed limits. We can make all drugs illegal, but it won't stop people from getting them.

By "Rapid fire weapons" I presume you're talking about semi-automatics, where one squeeze of the trigger emits one round of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons have been banned entirely, save those that can be purchased by licensed collectors with special permits. Every gun since .....guns......has allowed for one round of ammunition to be fired with a single pull of the trigger. Sure, it's faster to get to the next one when it's automatically chambered by gas-operated mechanisms, rather than powder horns and ramrods, but the difference between a semi-auto and a full-auto (which is already banned) is remarkable. The case for such weapons is simple: they exist, and those who seek to do you harm can and will be using them. What do you think the survival rate is against such a threat, compared between armed and disarmed citizens? To put it bluntly, unarmed/disarmed citizens very seldom shoot back at the criminals shooting at them, which makes it very easy for these criminals to achieve their destructive purpose. Some of us aren't willing to kowtow to such violent men (and yes, I say men, because the numbers indicate that it's usually a male). The case for gun ownership, thus, is the simple illustration that people without guns get killed by the people with them. Additionally, where are you getting this information that bombs are rarely ever used to commit suicide? Have you never heard of the Tamil Tigers? Your argument is fatally flawed with purposeful ignorance of demonstrable facts.

Ignoring statistics doesn't mean that they don't exist. The case for gun ownership is based not only in statistics but long-standing, time-honored legal precedent and cultural understanding. The case for banning all guns is based in little more than naïveté. It's not "classic avoidance" to demonstrate that the fallacy of your argument is a confusion of causation and correlation: it's simple logic, predicated on the information available - information your argument conveniently or deliberately ignores.

Fizboz,
The 2nd Amendment is in place for a very specific reason and so important it was the 2nd thing they put to paper at the request of the states to ratify the US Constitution as a part of the Bill of Rights. It is there so the great people of the United States are always armed and able to avoid Government Tyranny should it ever come down to that unpleasant last resort.
In defense of yourself, your family, or your nation.. Firearms are always the last resort. Not a first choice. These events that have taken place recently are not a Gun issue. They are a mental health issue. Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson AZ, James Eagan Holmes Aurora CO, Seung-Hui Cho at VA Tech. and Adam Lanza in Newtown CT. These are all incidents where the perpetrator had serious Mental health issues. The gun was only the tool used, just as the Knife was the tool used by Min Yingjun in Chenpeng Village’s Wanquan Elementary School in China the same day as the Newtown CT tragedy where he attacked 22 school children. Timothy McVeigh at Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building inn Oklahoma City OK killed 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. All of this was done by him without using a single gun.
What we do not need in this fragile economy is not to destroy jobs in the firearms trades, and suppress one of our most relevant and precious rights to the American people. Rather we should create jobs in the mental health field, Build facilities, train people, and help the people with mental issues before these things happen.
The tragedy of these events is not just the victims, but the perpetrators of the actions as well. If they would have been identified early, diagnosed, and received proper treatment, these events may have never happened, and their lives as well as the lives victims could have been very different as well. At times like this it is easy to give in to the emotion and pain. But we must take pause and truly look at the finding the root of these tragedies and address these.

I'm hardly ignoring statistics. In fact, I've done quite a lot of browsing over the internet within the last few days, enough to see that for every study claiming that guns prevented crime (Lott, who you quote and whom you can also find several methodological criticisms of) there were studies that demonstrated that guns ownership led to more crime (the National Crime Victimization Survey, for example). I suppose you can pick and choose whatever you want to support your argument - since controlled experiments are impossible and the politics are so polarized, I doubt there will ever be anything near definitive. Switzerland, by the way, another willful NRA misinterpretation, actually has so many guns because they have no standing army and men of service age are required to keep a gun at home as part of a citizens militia. The only country that has anything close to the number of guns per capita as the USA is Yemen, hardly a poster-child for non-violence.

Instead of insisting any causal relationship between guns and crime, which I have avoided, what I've said is that guns make crime more lethal. That is indisputable. Statistics from that most left wing of organizations - the FBI - show that crimes involving guns are far more likely to result in fatal injury than crimes involving any other weapons. Making murder harder makes fewer successful murderers.

One of the more vile arguments is 'they already exist' so better to make more / own more / own more deadly models. Australia (as one of the posters on these forums has pointed out) criminalized semi-automatic weapons after a similar shooting outrage and has so far not seen another. The idea of 'they're out there, get used to it' is nothing more than a defeatist call to an arms race.

Suicide comment, by the way, was referring to personal suicides, of which the leading method is... wait for it... firearms. In other words, guns in the house are more likely to kill the owner than kill an assailant.

So please, don't accuse others of ignoring statistics when you cherry pick those that support your argument.

Jobs? Sorry, the number of jobs that would be destroyed are nothing compared to the number of lives that have and continue to be destroyed. You can replace a job you lost, you can not replace a child murdered.

If you are replying to the quote "'We do not need to get good laws to restrain bad people. We need to get good people to restrain us from bad laws.' — G.K. Chesterton".
The point was that we already have good laws that cover all our bases. The fact that we have more and more laws only means that our society is so morally deprived as to "need" to be micro-managed. Taking the Ten Commandments out of our schools because "people may obey them" is a sign of where this country is headed.

Rights are not by definition those we accord ourselves by law. For example, the only reason the constitution mentions specific rights is to ensure that the government does not trample them, not to to ensure they exist in the first place. The ninth amendment recognizes this, stating that whatever rights are not specifically mentioned still exist and are retained by the people. The right to bear arms is a specific example of the right to defend yourself, a universal right whether stated in law or not.

A poor arguement? Out of date? Unarmed peoples of the world are dying every year at the hands of out of control governments, that is a fact, and it is nothing new. You seem to think America is immune to this when in fact our laws each year tighten up on liberty and every aspect of human behavior. I am certainly old enough to know that I am less free now than when I was a boy.
To another point, and I pray we never get this far, you do not have to defeat a standing army, you must simply keep it disrupted.The founders, as you said were indeed intelligent men, but they also were able to draw on thousands of years of history and human nature to arrive at their conclusions. Times may change just as you allude to however truths and principles are ageless.
To another point about individual protection; I am my own BEST "first responder" at the scene to perhaps stop the threat.No one has the right to take that away from someone else. All the police usually are able to do is pick up the pieces after the crime. Self-protection is logical, being able to defend liberty is worth the risks in a free society, given the morbid records from other "modern" nations ruled by thugs.

Wait, what? The Bill of Rights are not rights "we accord ourselves by law." They are the rights that the government cannot intrude upon - they are not accorded us by the government. Geez.

You can, of course, seek a constitutional amendment getting rid of the 2nd Amendment (in that the constitution provides for that mechanism), but you can't simply overlook individual rights you find inconvenient.

The problem in the US (from one leaving in Europe) is that a 20-years old person can own guns but cannot drink (what is the reason behind?). A 13-years old could be condemned as an adult and can fire bullets at a range.

Maybe if ten of those horrors happens the law will change...and the fact of having teachers armed will work until the day a teacher shot his scholars because of sudden depression...

Fizboz: Since you say that "Rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law." I assume you are from the UK, so let me explain. The US Declaration of Independence actually starts from the opposite position from what you assumed. It says that rights are inalienable and granted by God. The American theory of government is that everyone is, by default, 100% free. From there, people may freely chose to give up certain privileges and freedoms by writing laws.

So given that context, understand that 2nd amendment to the US constitution is actually saying "This right is granted by God and no government may take it away." It isn't saying "You are given this right by the government."

Certainly, the constitution can be amended, but it requires a 2/3 majority of every state. You would be hard pressed to get 2/3 of America to agree to eat their vegetables or wear clean socks, let alone something controversial like this!

By 'horrible cost', are you referring to the victims of this tragedy, which many in the U.S. government and media unfortunately, view only as politcal tools? Or are you positing, as regretable, the fact that 2& 1/2 million potential victims per year,in the U.S., manage to thwart the intentions of violent felons because they have the means to do so?

The only thing that seems somewhat insane to me, here is for someone to be making pronouncements on the legalities of our Constitutional rights and the right to self- defense, when they clearly lack a factual basis for their belief.

Emotionalism is unfortunately, the uninformed, anecdotal evidence of the moment...

Total misunderstanding of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights lists restrictions on the government in abridging the god given (or natural, if you will) rights that accord to all human beings. They are not "privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law." The Second Amendment, which is far more explicit than the right to abortion discovered by the Supreme Court, pertains to one's natural right to defend ones life and property by keeping and bearing arms. Millions of crimes are prevented and thousands of lives are saved each year by armed citizens. The absence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens does not deter criminals, who would ignore such laws, from perpetrating such horrible events in the future, even in countries without the legal ownership of guns.

"Rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law"

Say what? That's the exact OPPOSITE of a right. Our forefathers' defined rights as fundamental truths. Things we can not do without. The right to speak freely, the right to not be subject to state religions, the right to a sanctity of home. Rights are not privileges. They are far, far more than that.

Now, that's not to say we have an absolute right, which is why fully automatic weapons are nigh impossible to own (you can get them, but it's darn hard).

Actually, rights are unalienable and exist because you exist and defined it for yourself. You are insane if you believe rights are conferred by law or the government or even agreement with others. The founders of America were very clear no one is in control of rights beyond the individual. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not granting a right, this is telling the government they cant abridge and already existing right. You want a safer society, get rid of all of the insane liberal socialist ideas on you are owed a life and if you dont get it you can do whatever you want to take it and get rid of the religious fanatics who think they can impose their equally insane religious dogma by any means.

If guns were the problem that would imply there is absolutely no violence in any place where guns are banned and there has never been any sort of violence or massacre occurring before guns existed.

We men all have the weapon used in rape, should men all be castrated since it is the presence of the weapon that makes everyone unsafe.

A right granted by law can also be taken away by law and is therefore not really a right at all. There are inalienable rights that we have independant of any written law. One of those inalienable rights is the right to life itself and self determination. Those rights are meaningless with out the ability to defend it. The genius of the 2A is that gives people the actual ability to defend their rights rather than depend on a govt to respect those rights.

Fizboz, I think you must revise your American history. Our right to keep and bear arms is an individual freedom recognized by the founders of our nation in the Bill of Rights and is an essential part of our Constitution.

The Bill of Rights enumerates the individual freedoms and liberties that were retained by the People and not delegated to the government. They exist to protect the People from government.

Do you think our Constitution recognizes your freedom of speech or your privilege of speech? Do you think the Bill of Rights recognizes your right to "do-process" or your privilege to "do-process"? DO you think our Constitution recognized your right to vote or your privilege to vote?

No Sir, the right to keep and bear arms is a right not a privilege. As with many of our other freedoms, they have a cost. I wish I didn't have to tolerate the KKK or pornographers. I'm sure that in Cuba there is less crimes that in the US. But I prefer to live in a free country and accept the costs of freedom.

And yes, the Constitution gives you the right to disagree and I would never take that away from you.

Fizboz, I think you must revise your American history. Our right to keep and bear arms is an individual freedom recognized by the founders of our nation in the Bill of Rights and is an essential part of our Constitution.

The Bill of Rights enumerates the individual freedoms and liberties that were retained by the People and not delegated to the government. They exist to protect the People from government.

Do you think our Constitution recognizes your freedom of speech or your privilege of speech? Do you think the Bill of Rights recognizes your right to "do-process" or your privilege to "do-process"? DO you think our Constitution recognized your right to vote or your privilege to vote?

No Sir, the right to keep and bear arms is a right not a privilege. As with many of our other freedoms, they have a cost. I wish I didn't have to tolerate the KKK or pornographers. I'm sure that in Cuba there is less crimes that in the US. But I prefer to live in a free country and accept the costs of freedom.

And yes, the Constitution gives you the right to disagree and I would never take that away from you.

You are incorrect in dismissing gun ownership as a rights issue. It IS a right because all people have the right to their own survival. From its inception the founders of this country recognized not only the right of self defense but the need for a method of guarding against tyranny.

You are also incorrect in stating that rights are only defined by laws. The laws are designed to protect rights that exist in isolation from the law. By codifying such rights the intent is that not only does the government recognize such inalienable rights (that is, you cannot take the right away because you do not have the authority to do so, and removing someone's right to whatever is actually just infringing on that right, not removing it) but the government is designed to protect those rights. Going back to my previous comment about your right to survival - almost all animals will fight for their survival when confronted by death. It is instinctive. Humans are no different and it doesn't require a law to codify this and make it true.

All that said, I'd be interested in seeing an elected official propose an extensive background check on individuals purchasing firearms if the official also included a core provision in the law for the purchase data to be discarded when 30-60 days have passed with both civil and criminal penalties for not discarding the data.

Gun enthusiasts don't want people to be harmed with guns (or any other weapon for that matter) But they DO want to preserve their anonymity where gun purchases are concerned. No gun owner wants to be on any governments' list as a firearms owner if the historical certainty of tyrannical dictatorship arises. As evidence of this, see http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

This red herring has come up so many times it's worth addressing... Reread my post. Did I use the word government anywhere? I said that people define rights. That is absolutely true. What we assert as rights are things that we put primacy on above any decision of government.

That does not mean that these rights are somehow eternal, immutable or unconditional. Rights are restricted according to specific situations all the time (right to free speech vs national security, for example) and rights are also added and repealed (27 times as a matter of fact).

Of course, gun enthusiasts would have you believe that some how the second amendment is somehow special. You're right. It is. It's horribly out of date and needs to be circumscribed, tightly defined as possible and quite possibly repealed.

And please, people, stop with the paranoid delusional tyrannical dictatorship nonsense - hypothetical nonsensical ravings are not worth the cost of thousands of lives.

If "does the ownership of guns make for a safer society" is what "the question" should be because, as you purport, "[i]t is clearly a public health and safety issue.", then motor vehicles (MV) should be outlawed as well.

MVs cause more deaths and injuries than guns and MVs are not protected by the Constitution whereas, as you point out, guns are.

"Yes, I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making, it far past time to step back and decide whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost."

This is completely, patently, incorrect. The Bill or Rights is NOT the source of our rights. The founders clearly attributed our rights as humans to God almighty. The purpose of the BoR is to lay out boundaries to prevent the government from trampling on our rights.

Um, no they didn't. Many of the founding fathers were deists, which in those days was about the closest thing to an atheist. Go find the word 'god' in the constitution... guess what? It's not there, and neither is any reference to 'rights given by god almighty'.

What do cars do? They get you places. They transport things. What do guns do? They shoot and kill people. Accidents are a side effect of using a car improperly. Death is the main effect of using a gun properly.

Why cars? Couldn't think of anything more original? Kites probably killed someone once... at least that would have been novel.

I would disagree that rights are "by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law."

The Founding Fathers made clear their belief in natural rights. The Declaration of Independence speaks of humans being "endowed by their Creator" with "certain unalienable rights..."

Safety, public health, mental health and many other issues are part of the firearms dynamic, just as they apply to automobiles, alcohol, tobacco and myriad other items.

As the writer points out, there are already 300 million guns in circulation in the United States. Try to confiscate them (almost an impossibility) and the criminals will still have firearms while innocent victims will be left much more vulnerable.

Rights are not privileges.
U.S. Constitution is taken very seriously by the courts- it defines and protects almost all rights in the U.S.
The problem is not only about the guns- it is also about mental health and the media. To emphasize only on the assault weapons completely misses the point.
Don't get me wrong- I think there should be a constitutional amendment on the freedom to bear arm. However, until it is ratified by the States (2/3 of them), we still have to respect the Constitution.

"rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law." Wrong. They are not "privileges". The 2nd amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights represents restrictions on government power in the Enlightenment natural rights tradition. Banning guns, or restricting them severely, in America could possibly be a bigger public safety disaster than just leaving honest gun owners alone.
I would refer you to a series of articles at reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/14/in-wake-of-sandy-hook-elementary-shootin). Especially the one titled "Gun Control's Twisted Outcome" that talks about the consequences of gun control in England.

The CDC website informs that more children are killed each year in backyard swimming pools than as victims of gun violence. If we truly care about saving the lives of children, perhaps we should have stronger laws that prohibit the personal ownership of swimming pools.

The CDC website informs that more children die each year in backyard swimming pools than as victims of gun violence. If we truly care about the welfare of children, perhaps we should have stronger laws that prohibit the personal ownership of swimming pools.

It is not a privilege it is a right.
The problem is not the guns, the problem as you indicated is a mental health emergency.
Unfortunately Our Government or lack thereof is not the solution, how can we trust anything that comes out of Washington?
No this is a debate that must continue by We the people. I cannot imagine that anyone would believe that Washington has a solution, a country club Congress, a do nothing old boy's club of a Senate. A disgrace to we the people.
As a former Marine, and Vietnam Vet, I a not prepared to give up my rights so that sorry ass Senator can have his talking points. We are in deep trouble, our society overall is in deep trouble, the atrocity committed on these children will not be solved by Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, it will be solved by rational, individuals who would demand change in our health care system providing assistance to those who seek help. I ask you do you believe that if a student asked for help, do you really believe that we have the systems in place to assist that student, and his parents? We do not because our system is flawed, and we hate to admit it.

It would be solved when Government hears the voice of the people.
Unfortunately we at this moment in our history do not have a Government, we do have a bunch of actors imitating that they are statesmen.
Yes I also grieve with all of the families in this unspeakable loss, at the same time I grieve for our country which has been kidnapped by incompetence, may their true faces be reflected while they act as if they really care and are doing the peoples business.

It is not a privilege it is a right.
The problem is not the guns, the problem as you indicated is a mental health emergency.
Unfortunately Our Government or lack thereof is not the solution, how can we trust anything that comes out of Washington?
No this is a debate that must continue by We the people. I cannot imagine that anyone would believe that Washington has a solution, a country club Congress, a do nothing old boy's club of a Senate. A disgrace to we the people.
As a former Marine, and Vietnam Vet, I a not prepared to give up my rights so that sorry ass Senator can have his talking points. We are in deep trouble, our society overall is in deep trouble, the atrocity committed on these children will not be solved by Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, it will be solved by rational, individuals who would demand change in our health care system providing assistance to those who seek help. I ask you do you believe that if a student asked for help, do you really believe that we have the systems in place to assist that student, and his parents? We do not because our system is flawed, and we hate to admit it.

It would be solved when Government hears the voice of the people.
Unfortunately we at this moment in our history do not have a Government, we do have a bunch of actors imitating that they are statesmen.
Yes I also grieve with all of the families in this unspeakable loss, at the same time I grieve for our country which has been kidnapped by incompetence, may their true faces be reflected while they act as if they really care and are doing the peoples business.

Actually, you've stumbled upon a much broader issue that affects how different people approach the Constitution. There are several schools of thoughts on rights, and it is certainly not irrefutable that they are human-created privileges. Many, perhaps most people would tell you that rights and privileges are profoundly different, and that privileges are far weaker than rights. Moreover, there is certainly no consensus on whether rights are purely human constructs or are natural/divine in origin.

As for gun control itself, I definitely think that private citizens do not have the right to bear any arms they choose, so this is going to come down to a judgment call. Just be mindful that the reasoning we use now will have ramifications for future decisions. If we unilaterally decide that rights are human in origin and therefore flimsy, as you suggest, then we open the way for far more consequential decisions to be made on a whim. Though it sounds hyperbolic, I truly believe that such a line of thinking could lead to the end of any real freedom or liberty in our country.

Like it or not, gun ownership is not a 'privilege' -- It is right. As much a right as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Arguably, this is a fundamentally bad idea, but until the Supreme Court rules otherwise it is the idea the rules. Conversely, driving a car is a privilege; in point of fact, there is no 'right' to a driver's license; it is something you are conditionally permitted to do, a permission that can in many states be summarily withdrawn, without due process of law, if, say, you decline a policeman's request that you take a breathalyzer test for blood alcohol content. Opponents of gun control to some extent simply make themselves irrelevant either by ignoring the Constitutional point, which may be self-satisfying but which fails to make it go away, or by announcing themselves to be the definers of the Constitution, which they aren't. I note -- no offense intended -- this confusion to be particularly common among British writers, perhaps because Britain does not really have a Constitution, and certainly not one that is taken seriously.

I couldn't disagree with Fizboz more. I believe I have the right to defend myself and my property. I can also hire a sheriff to help me defend my rights. Ten others can hire the same sheriff to help us all defend our own rights. But, even if ten of us get together and hire a sheriff I don't believe we have the right to take something from Mr. Fizboz just because we can. Ten people, a state, a country, an island it is all the same. People have rights, governments only can defend peoples rights. Anyone agree?

Why does no one seem to give any credence to the thought behind the constitution. The right to bear arms is in there for a reason, and the people who put it there well understood the downsides (the public killing themselves). As far as I can see the reasons still exist - you can't trust a government official with a gun (whether local, state or federal government). As the article points out - either ban all guns from society (including government) or live with the downsides of guns. The gloom you feel is for the lack of progress in society since the constitution was developed.

After reading the articles of famous people such as John Locke, Francis Bacon and others of times before both the European and American Constitutions, you will find that while the US Constitution provides the basis of "how" government will contract with its citizens. I have a profound understanding that Life, Liberty and Property (later changed to Happiness) are GOD given rights not a "law we accord to ourselves" through legislation in fact John Locke continues his successful argument that in case this "contract" breaks down" the people have a right to "dissove" the contract.

Fizbol if individuals were not armed (peaceful but armed) then how could the "contract" be "dissolved" if only the government had weapons? Positive law are Mans laws .....Naturial Laws are those laws that are given to every man. Natural laws are provided by GOD. in the US Constitution these natural laws are indelible ( cannot be erased. before we tamper with a Constituion other countries would love to have I think we should look at domestic issues first such as each contry feeding its own people, each country providinghealth services for its own country, reducing homelessness to zero in eachones own country, increasing educational standards in each country.

As the know last obsticle the factors of crime continue to spiral out of control I find it offending that others are considering removing the one protection that GOD gave us ( the right of self protection and the pursuit of Happiness) Correct the factors of crime.

No, it's not.
The state has no way to ensure a 100% crime-free society, neither has the right to take one's right of self-defense (and let's cut the hypocrisy right here: a mother going against a thug when both are armed is a much more favorable scenario to the former than when are both unarmed).

And Lexington's logic on guns is pedestrian to say the least.
We could say the exactly same thing about cars and planes (and the logic is not faulty, because whilst we're talking about means of transport both CAN be used as weapons as 9/11 and WWII has shown on the latter).
The difference in the case of the British model against the American one is due that the former has been more sucessful in ensuring law enforcement, have a more efficient bureaucracy and less disperse demographics.

You may feel that way, but for over 220 years the Supreme Court has held fast to defining the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. You may consider this madness, but a lot of really smart people have tried to argue the right does not exist, and all have failed.
You can debate policy all you want, but the only way to accomplish your goal is to amend the US Constitution. That probably be the subject of debate - is America ready to repeal the Second Amendment?
Any other legal debates are useless as the same arguments have been used for decades.

Airplanes make a horrific weapon. Had we extended the ban on airplanes, 9-11 would never have happened. We could have averted the war in Iraq and Afganistan, thus saving thousands of lives. Give me a break. The majority fly, so we allow airplanes. The minority shoot assault weapons---so we ban these? Cars are lethal too! If you live in New York, you don't need to own a car. Why not ban cars? Because that would be stupid. Many people want to drive, and many people have lifestyles that require a car. So we require that new drivers acquire the skills to operate one. Only then can they be licensed to drive. By analogy, the same should apply to assault weapons. Yes, it is a lifestyle issue. Yes, assault weapons are justifiable. It requires a high degree of skill, discipline and self-knowledge to master the use of any weapon---be it bows and arrows, rifles, handguns, knives and fists. Yes to smarter regulation, competency assessments, licensing and accountability---no to outright bans! Call me an enlightened Democrat.

If this is a health and safety issue - and with around 12000 souls killed annually by firearms, I agree with you, it probably is - then Mr Obama could consider introducing a special tax for gun owners. Not a punitive tax but one that reflects the rough cost to the government of managing the proliferation of 300 million guns : police training, health and safety equipment, insurance to cover possible injury to third parties, counselling the bereaved etc. 1/300millionth of the cost of that will still be quite substantial and may cause people to think twice before buying a gun. Back that up with robust sanctions against folk found to be gun owners dodging the gun tax and I think eventually most American's will ditch the notion of the sanctity of gun ownership in favour of being able to pay their mortgages and put food on the table.

A common misconception about our Constitution is that the Bill of Rights created rights for us to enjoy. They did nothing of the sort. The Second Amendment no more "created" a right to bear arms than the First Amendment "created" a right to free speech/free exercise of religion, or the Fourth Amendment "created" a right to privacy. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that it merely recognizes inalienable natural rights that belong to a free people and cannot be "abridged" or "infringed" by the government. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were assumed to be rights that already exist as a fundamental component of liberty, and the Founders wanted to make absolutely sure that our principal legal document recognized that simple fact so that those rights could not be compromised.

Rights are NOT by definition privileges. That is the thing that hinders an English understanding of an American arguement. Rights are defined as inalienable, granted by God (NOT government). The right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, are not granted by whatever current administration is in charge of the government. Its a completely different situation in Great Britain where somehow they still believe in royalty and some bloodlines having special rights over the others.

< Yes, I know the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution, but rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making, it far past time to step back and decide whether the privilege of gun ownership is something that is worth the horrible cost. >

This erroneous definition is an all-to-common misreading of "rights" in the American setting, although it may well apply to the usage of the French Revolution (which famously devolved into the Terror, an outcome far more horrible than living among armed neighbors). The American doctrine is that government exists to secure pre-existing (unalienable) rights, not that it defines rights into existence. The 2nd amendment (among the original ten) was added to secure the consent of the governed to a proposed Constitution. It is as relevant today as when the governed insisted on its inclusion in the defining document of the American Federal Republic.

"...rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law. Since they are entirely of our own making..."

You may believe rights are "nonsense on stilts," to quote Jeremy Bentham, but do not make the mistake of believing your understanding is the understanding of the Founders, or many contemporary Americans for that matter. Many people believe rights, including the rights protected by the second amendment, to be something fundamental that cannot be redefined at the public's whim, even in a democracy.

Guns kill and there is a lot of power in having the ability to take the life of another person. Power is one of humans most twisted treasures. The 2nd amendment allows ordinary citizens access to the same guns that criminals and tyrants possess. There is no way to eradicate mans lust for power therefore no reasonable way to eradicate guns.

Fizboz, imagine this real story that happened to a friend...it was a December just like any other December, son and daughter home for the holidays...the family is awoken to a raucous, using knives alone, 4 criminals commit a home invasion to include 2 days of terror, rape, forced incest, and utter humiliation. This family does not get together for Christmas anymore. The son was forced to have intercourse with his mother and sister and made to watch as the criminals raped and sodomized the daughter and mother. The 2nd amendment allows me the opportunity to protect my family from this type of heinous crime. Did the perpetrators get caught? Yes, 'justice' prevailed, yet left the family shattered and broken that 10 years of counseling has yet to bring them 'justice'.

On to my second point. Alcohol. More people die in one month from alcohol related auto crashes than the entire history of all mass school killings. They have been going on for centuries. Anytime you place people together which makes them vulnerable, there will be people that commit atrocities.

From the US Census Bureau: 2009
Total drivers involved in fatal crashes
45,230
Drivers by age group:
Under 16 years old 181

Yet, I don't see any blogs calling for the banning alcohol or police to patrol bars at closing time.

I could go on and on but I will address one last issue. Mexico. Mexico is in a state of chaos as a direct result of ONLY the bad guys and the limited military having guns. That behavior has not and will not spill over into the US because we have gun rights and they know we will not tolerate being held hostage.

I don't think enough people own guns much less own them responsibly. If there were more guns, there would be less crime.

Look up the academic studies:
From The Effects of Concealed Carry, and the Research of John Lott and Others -- A Look At Both Sides:
Conclusion: The entire weight of scholarly consensus is that right-to-carry laws, on balance, do no harm -- and such laws may save lives and reduce violent crime.

There will always be crazy people. There will always be power-mad men. There will always be crime. And, there will always be people with a desire to be safe that is so strong that they will go to any length to do so.

Do you think that the US would be a free country if it were not for weapons? Russia and the US have a mutual understanding that should one attack the other, retaliation is guaranteed, which creates a balance.

Taking guns away is the external fix to an internal problem. Mental health, or lack of it, is the real issue. The police have very limited powers when it comes to people with mental illness. They are unable to intervene until a person has already demonstrated they are a danger to themselves or others. Too little too late.

The change comes from within, not from without, and some things will never change completely unless we implement eugenics to eradicate DNA that is deemed dangerous. Police officers exhibit similar brain waves that serial killers exhibit, as do race car drivers, yet they are free among us and respected for the most part. Where is the disconnect? That is what we need to answer.

For your sake, I hope guns are not outlawed so you and your family can continue to live in a world made safer and more free by the mere presence of guns.

1st, you state as a fact that "rights are by definition the privileges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law." This is patently false. Rights are DEFINED in our constitution as unalienable, as they are Natural Rights provided by God- and so not revokable by men. ANY men. You also, like many today, see everything -& more importantly everyone- around you as controllable & manageable. There are prices to pay for everything. Gun rights do NOT spring up just as tyrrany is grabbing a foothold in society. That is when they are LEAST likely to arrive. They either exist in perpetuity, keeping tyrrany at bay, or they are forfeited in advance,& tyrrany eventually follows. Accepting the dangers of horrible costs are the American way. We accept the dangers of some horrors happening- because we have learned from history that bigger horrors will follow the adandoning of our current Constitutional approach. See Europe of the 20th Century. I'm glad you fancy yourselves so much smarter than Jefferson & Adams & Washington were. Sadly, you are again mistaken.

Fiz, this is absolute bollocks. If you want to read the Constitution in isolation, that's your choice. It doesn't make you correct in any meaningful way. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is well known to mean something specifically. It means the Bill of Rights represents rights that are born in us, & are not revokable. Also, Deists in the 1770's were most certainly NOT anything like atheists today. They were Desists because they had issues with Jesus, or the Church of their day, or Biblical perfection. They most certainly almost ALL believed that an all-powerful God had provided inherent rights to Mankind, & the Constitution is infused with that idea. They left the WORD "God" out for a series of reasons, not because any of them doubted that God existed, nor that He'd endowed us with unalienable rights. There are NO writings suggesting they believed that Rights are endowed by MAN. None. There are REAMS of writings from the 1770's from the Constitution's authors available, & your conclusions are simply not supported by them.

Fiz, the one argument you cannot overcome even by denial is the case for a well armed citizenry being effective at protecting the peace. BigTimmy made a great point which you naturally ignored. No one in the Weimar Republic seriously believed that the Fed Govt could possibly consider tyrrany over them. Neither did the Russians during the Revolution. Nor the Chinese when Mao took over. You can't as a thoughful individual ridicule the idea that there is reason to guard against US Govt tyrrany when there are few examples in history where govt's ruling over an unarmed populace have NOT drifted to tyrrany. You cannot disprove the proposition that the only reason the US is not a tyranny today is because we have a well-armed populace. You can believe it, but it is not disprovable. And history is NOT on your side here. And it is a silly argument anyway- you claim both that our govt is NOT close to a tyranny, and even if they were, we couldn't do anything about it. The Weimar German govt was not close to tyrrany one day, & Hitler was in complete control the next, after 30 years of citizen disarmament. Jews were particularly targeted for complete disarmament. 750 Jews in the Warsaw ghetto held off the greatest military force on Earth for a month with a handful of smuggled, illegal handguns. Who would have ever dreamed that the most sophisticated govt & people on earth, who gave us the modern University, Beethoven & Wagner, would ever be hunting innocent citizens down like dogs in the streets -& executing them- a mere 75 years ago? No doubt the Warsaw Jews may well have suffered some horrible mass-killings by berzerk Jews in the 1920's & 30's- had they not been prohibited from owning ammunition or guns by the German Govt. The American people would NOT be easily cowed coast to coast, 300,000,000 citizens even against a high-tech military of a few hundred thousand, most of who would refuse to kill large numbers of Americans. You can call it science fiction if you like. Evil men with unlimited power -& no chance for meeting resistance- have always found ways of rising to great effect- unless you intellectual secular aetheists have figured out a way to revoke history repeating itself? My God, the overeducated have short memories & short-sighted priorities.

Brilliant. Only rich people will be able to afford to own guns & protect themselves. Only a middle-class white guy living in a relatively safe, non-ghetto area could make that case with a straight face. Some rights transcend safety. Once we start taxing all un-safe behavior, you have tyrrany. That's when the Govt can tell you what to do, all day, every day, esp if you're poor. Only the wealthy will be able to exercise a modicum of freedom of choice under that type of regimen. Screw that.

What about the 236 years of US history that show that the chance of the government ever turning against its citizenry is bunk?

The likelihood of having to defend yourself against a government that has turned against you, the likelihood of the citizens being able to defend themselves if it did, the likelihood of needing a home militia are about the same as the likelihood of a zombie apocalypse. Nil. The likelihood that someone will get killed with a gun in the US today is pretty much 100%.

Trawl history for your self-justifying paranoid fantasies as much as you want, believe without evidence that having well armed citizens would have actually stopped any of your examples... Us 'intellectual secular atheists' will stick with the 'short sighted priority' of saving lives.

And yet they allowed that a vote from three quarters of the states could overturn 'gods will'. The only reason you believe that any rights are rights from 'god' is because you approve of them and want to justify your own beliefs through some unquestionable nonsense.

Somehow god had to amend the natural rights he granted us 17 times since the original bill of rights? Did he just forget to allow women to vote or just change his mind some day?

For an all-knowing god, he's pretty humanly sloppy too. Was he hung over when he proposed the 18th, maybe? Did he sober up by the 21st?

If the constitution were to be amended to repeal the 2nd, would that be god changing his mind on our inalienable rights or would that suddenly just be a bad mistake by man not agreeing with you?

Right – well thanks for that Chrisdnld. It does feel great to be socially stereotyped by a complete stranger who hasn’t even met you before. I am middle class as it turns out (since Thatcher you’ll find most of us are or aspire to be, over here) but I didn’t start off that way. I grew up in West Gorton a borough of Manchester UK. If you Google it you’ll see it’s not the South Side of Chicago but it ain’t pretty either. Now, Britain isn't what I would call gentle and laid back. We have a sorry history of warmongering, colonialism and general casual violence that the whole world knows about all too well. What we also have is strict gun control. We’ve had it for about a century but after sixteen five-year olds and their teacher were gunned down by a nutter in 1996 our government was able to effectively ban private gun ownership. The reason I suggest a tax (I admit it's a bit left field) is that no matter how many innocent men, women and children get gunned down in the US, the government there always seems to have trouble passing any law that makes a difference. It usually comes up against the argument that people kill people, not guns. Which is about as asinine a repost to gun control as it’s possible to conjure up; the bit left out is : people + guns kill people. Americans are no more violent that the Swiss or us Brits – it’s their 300 million guns that make the difference.
And as far as the “Some rights transcend safety” argument goes – what does that mean exactly? Are you saying you disagree with the very heavy handed (and in my view very sensible) search and control procedures still being practiced at US airports in the wake of 9/11? And as to the idea of a gun tax limiting people’s ability to protect themselves – I’ve been to the US a few times and I saw policemen patrolling the streets and I know there’s a National Guard, the CIA, the FBI and the US Army. If my tax dollars were contributing to the regular and thorough firearms training of professionals from those institutions I would be appalled if I had to fork out even more brass to protect myself by buying a gun, learning how to use it, and practicing regularly so I am in tip-top condition when the hooded intruder bashes down my door. And even then when you consider that highly trained police officers and soldiers sometimes get it wrong and shoot an innocent man, I would reason that the chances of me successfully using my shiny new automatic safely for the purpose of stopping a felon would be fairly low. I would be more likely to kill a neighbour coming over to borrow a bowl of sugar or myself while cleaning it. If the person at City Hall isn’t putting enough officers on the street then vote for someone who will.
And what’s wrong with taxing unsafe behaviour? We accept the principle elsewhere : If I’m a bad driver and you have a long history of safe driving, why should you pay the same insurance premium as me? Similarly if you juggle swords for a living, of course you should pay a higher life insurance premium than an office clerk. It seems to me that if you can so easily take ownership of a weapon that can wreak the sort of tragic havoc we saw in Connecticut then you have to be able to take on the full potential cost of misusing it – like running amok with it in an elementary school. And as this is a tax and not a flat rate deduction, all gun owners would pay N% of their gross income, so the rich would pay proportionally the same as everyone else.

Obviously you feel this Right is NOT worth the cost. Lets set aside the fact that the Constitution, (contrary to popular belief & yours as well), did NOT bestow this Right. And gun ownership is NOT a “privilege” as you would imply. Nor is this a Right of our own making. The 2nd Amd CONFIRMED gun ownership as a PREXISTING RIGHT, stating; it “shall NOT BE INFRINGED”. As it pre-existed the writing of the Bill of Rights, it is by definition NOT of our own making. Perhaps this seems to be picking “Legal Nits”. Sorry, but I am an attorney & these “nits” are significant. But that said; you would obviously change the Constitution. So, with reference to Article 5; (suggest you read it & hopefully understand political demographics of the US), how do you propose to affect such a change? I’m sure many readers here would like to know. Perhaps you have ideas not yet considered.

Rights are not accorded to ourselves by law. Rights are ours naturally and this is the basis of our Constitution and our freedom. Government does what we allow it to do but cannot infringe upon our rights. If you don't like it, pass an Amendment. In the meantime you should not mislead people with slight-of-hand tactics like renaming a right a "privilege".

"but rights are by definition the priviledges and freedoms we accord ourselves by law"..... You couldn't be more wrong. Rights are God-given/endowed by our creator. The Bill of Rights was created not to grant us those 'priviledges', but to restrain the government against the violation of those rights already inherent in us.

In the USA gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a right. While a privilege might be described as a right, it also is described as a right privileged people, or not all people have such as the rich. The 2nd Amendment applies to all US citizens. The 2nd amendment does not grant US citizens the right of firearm ownership, as we already had the right before the 2nd amendment was even written. The 2nd amendment prevents the government from interfering with our right (we already had) to keep and bear arms, So basically the 2nd amendment is telling the federal government what it can't do, not what we the citizens can do. Living FREE is not always Free, there are cost and some of those cost are because of guns, some from other amendments. Should someone write a book on how to murder or make bombs? Well they shouldn't but they have the right to do it and if someone kills a person with the knowledge from that book do we ban free speech too? We can't live in a protective bubble all our life and even if someone was on a deserted island alone, in the middle of the ocean there are various dangers and risk. You might just get hit by a meteor in the head and killed.

Excuse me if I disagree that rights are a privilege. Is it a vassalage to live life your own way, to protect your life and property from criminals and aggressive government and tyrants? If you as a individual or local community does not have sufficient strength in the law to protect against this how else do you expect to be protected but by equal if note overwhelming counter force.

Right.. so we use psychopaths, gang-bangers, and criminals in general, as an excuse to take away a right that has given SO many people jobs and the ability of self defense? Are all people to be trusted with guns? Hell no. But does that mean we blame the majority? No. If a large group of high schoolers are classified as relatively dumb, even though there are still a handful of really smart kids, would the generalization of calling that whole group of dumb people be fair to the people who are actually smart? If we ban guns, right now, how would you stop the ones that are already out there? it's not exactly easy. And don't think a total gun ban/confiscation would be any easier. Most military forces would abandon the order because they swore oath to the very Constitution that gives Americans the right to bear arms. How about a multi-billion dollar industry? The people that work in manufacturing and/or sales of firearms? How far would you go to feed your family. I have owned firearms for years. I have siblings in the house. No one in my family has ever been affected by my choice to own firearms. But the moment an uninvited guest comes through my door, I WILL NOT WELCOME HE/SHE WITH OPEN ARMS. I am obligated to protect my family by any means. Anyone that argues that self-protection with a gun isn't viable, but kung-fu is, is well....a bit too close minded. My neighbors know i own as well. If you were my open-minded neighbor, whether guns are for you or not, I wouldn't hesitate to help you out in dire situation. Respectfully placing my opinion, Mark.

If you don't like this constitution, stop being a nationalist, and move to one of the many nations that already outlaws guns. We don't need another nation like that. There are plenty to choose from. I would gladly choose to live in America over any other nation simply because of the constitution being what it is. I like being able to buy a gun. I like being able to raise my daughter to be able to shoot. I like the government being afraid of the people, rather than the reverse.

It's not a privilege. Let's get something straight. The founding fathers created the constitution and the bill of rights to protect what they saw as "god given" or unalienable rights. Your utopian idea of a "safer society" is way off. I'm not willing to give up my rights in order to make you feel more safe. Stop calling it a privilege. You wouldn't feel the same way if someone was attacking your 1st amendment right to free speech. Just because you don't agree with gun ownership doesn't mean you get to deem it unnecessary and a public risk. There are much more pressing issues which claim more American lives and are a greater health risk that everyone seems to ignore. Why not complain about cigarettes or fast food. Both of which contribute to the number one killer in the US...heart disease.

I love my country and I enjoy the freedom that has been protected by our Constitution.

Fizboz, your an absolute idiot just like the author. A "right" is not a privilage we "accord" ourselves by law. Privileges can be withdrawn, rights cannot. I do not need some beurcratic retard to tell me I have a privilege to defend my life, family, home and liberty. That is a right given to me by being born. The author failed to note what exactly it is he is trying to say. That being, it is safer to allow an intruder to come in, rape your wife, steal you belongings, and possibly kill your family than it is to get up, pull out a gun and defend yourself. In my opinion, the author is as idiotic as Rosie O'Donnel being a proponent of gun control when she has the luxury of walking around with armed guards. Do some research on the subject for your self for once. By research, I mean look at things such a crime statistics in relation to gun control. You will see that the worst places in the US to live, are those places with the highest number of gun control laws. Chicago, DC east, LA. Safest places with the LOWEST crimerates are those with "Shall Issue" ccw/chp. I own a gun, I have a concealed handgun permit, I know how to safely use my guns and I carry with me everywhere it is legal to do so therefore protecting not only myself but also the people around me. However, guns are NOT my first defence, it is my last. Just like in the Constitution, the 2nd amendmen is only there as a LAST defence for all RIGHTS CONFIRMED BY THE CONSTITUTION. In the interest of public safety, I refer to the quote I heard years ago. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

I do not believe everyone MUST own a gun. Only those comfortable with the responsibility it comes with in the protection of the citizens of this country from those who wish to do them harm.

Please stop trying to force your opinions on to law abiding gun owners with complete disregard to total facts. If you wish to debate ANYTHING, please come armed with facts. Not irrational, emotionally drawn opinions. I urge anyone who differs in opinion than me to come to the table with your own FACTS from dependable sources and show me even ONE place in the world that has restrictive gun laws or gun bans that resulted in an overall DECREASE in TOTAL crime (not just gun related violence) and an increase in public saftey, freedoms and prosperity.

100% agree, but isn't that the whole point of this article? That such a move is simply not politically feasible in the United States? The majority does not want these laws to be changed, regardless of how much common sense it makes to change them.

This is really correct - armed police are not much good at protecting people and regularly shoot unarmed, and even innocent people, not because they mean ill but because it is hard to be right.

At the root of this is a faulty public perception, held by many even in the UK, that if the bad guy has a gun you will be safer if you have one too. I a pretty sure that studies show that this is not the case, and that an armed policeman is more, not less, likely to be hurt when facing an armed baddie. This may be based on 'obviousness' (like the lump of labour fallacy) or on too many fantastical movies. In any case we need to scotch some of these ideas - how about an 'Office for Accurate Public Perception'?

Even if studies have shown that you are correct---"...this is not the case, and that an armed policeman is more, not less, likely to be hurt when facing an armed baddie."---you cannot view this issue in isolation. How about deterrence? Now that any baddie knows he has more power with a gun over the unarmed policeman, will he/she be more inclined to commit crime? Isn't that what having police is all about?

Of course the police would be less likely to be injured if they to not have a gun. The baddie would simply fire a shot, the policeman would take cover, and the baddie would flee.

This takes us to the corolary of your conclusion: it would also be less likely to catch bad guys if police did not carry a gun. Plus, knowing that, every thug would carry a gun, knowing it would be easier to flee this way.

I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT ONE COMMON THREAD I SEE OF AMERIKAANZ FROM THIER DIVERSE HOME STATES,IS THIER DISLIKE OF DISTURBING THE PRIVACY THEY SO JEALOUSLY GAURDE,SO I'M SURE REPORTS OF ANY MOLESTATION OF THAT WOULD BE UNDER REPORTED.
SO VERY SAD THAT A CULTURE THAT HAS SUCH A LOW BIRTH RATE AND BROKEN FAMILY LIVES SHOULD SUFFER SO MUCH.

Newtown's tragedy was horrific. When governments go bad and murder its unarmed citizens (Stalin and his government, some 30 million, Hitler and his government, some 12 million, Mao- 60 million, Khmer Rouge- 20% of Cambodians, US government's genocide against America's natives) it is a tragedy of immense scale. Because of the scale, we must maintain perspective. For a nation to remain free, its citizens must remain armed.

The police themselves voted to remain unarmed. That way they are less likely to be shot, and the public would come to their aid if any one of them were to be attacked. Carrying a gun would have alienated their fellow citizens.

During the American Revolution, more inhabitants of the American colonies fought for the British Crown than for the Continental Army. The war of American Independence was essentially a civil war between settlers who wanted to remain with the Crown and tyrannical landowning noble elites who wanted power, and had it not been for military intervention led by French noblemen Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette and Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau dispatched by Louise XVI, the usurpers would have been overthrown. The French lost Canada from the influx of English refugees and the King lost his head out of the deal. Let's not lose ours blaming the Brits.

Well stated, but totally inaccurate opinion, not at all factual. As a former armed policeman in the U.S. the difference is training, training and more training. In confrontations, not ambushes, the baddies almost always lose in the same pattern to the trained officer; five to six wild shots versus two to center body mass.

Secondly, the strongest defense of the second amendment is that the founding fathers put it in place as a strong reminder to government to heed the rest of the Bill of Rights.

An Office of Accurate Public Perception? hahahah We people are sick of the mainstream media, lies and psyops as it is. We have read and heard of second gunmen in all of these shootings and suspect secret government forces of staging these incidents. U.S. and IZRAIL revel in false flags, like children of the father of all lies lucifer.
There are plenty of homicides in UK without guns being used. If more people had guns, it does not mean the murder or suicide rate would soar. The message here misses the point about guns-as if they could of themselves kill anyone. No, they require someone to load and shoot them.
When there are reports of the US government ordering millions of hollow bullets, I say the US people need guns. We may say these report are incredible but then again so is our war against Syria using proxy mercenary terrorists against the MOST decent governments in their regions. If we want to kick bad governments out, then why not Qatar or Saudi or UAE or IZRAIL? Saudi sent its death row prisoners to Syria to murder the people AND WE sent prisoners from Guantanamo to kill the Libyan people. WE support terrorists and terrorism in Syria IZRAIL & Libya, we called the most democratic nation in the world a dictatorship!!! Libya had the most advanced democratic and socialist (indigenous ie oil wealth sharing) system on this earth. Sarah Palin had the oil companies make payments to Alaskans but Gaddafi set up the housing programme, the greatest engineering project in history with the Great man made river, NHS with free dentistry EVEN for tourists...WE called a great benevolent hero an evil dictator and looked away as millions demonstrated their love for him. NATO UKFUS and half of the world's nations colluded to kill and dispossess the majority of the Libyan people and imprison & torture the lawfully elected servants of the Libyan people.
We also collaberated in the mass extermination of the African migrant workers, naturally black Libyans and the average Libyan who was part of the Libyan government. After seeing what humanitarian intervention by our governments consists of, I support US gun ownership by the people because it is a big deterrent to our war criminal governments from turning on US, their own citizens.

Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists--and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.

In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.

The Puritans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived--he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists' language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest.

Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.

These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.

John Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection."

The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the Puritans to survive their first year.
In celebration of their good fortune, the colony's governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.

It is just incorrect to say that an armed policeman is more likely to be hurt when facing an armed opponent than if he was unarmed. True, police do get shot, which has happens frequently during traffic stops and domestic disturbances when police typically have their guns holstered. But usually in a shootout the bad guy gets shot. When only the bad guy has the gun, he wins.

Show me your evidence. Also, do you need a gun to commit a brutality against another individual? The same day as the Conneticut shootings, a man in China stabbed twenty school children. McVey killed 16 children under the age of 7 in the Oklahoma City Bombing. Switzerland has a gun culture where over 1/3 of the population owns a fire arm and the men are required to be trained in such matters. Try and find gun violence statistics for the Swiss. Probably wont be able to because they aren't even reported because the numbers are just that low. That is evidence. No guesswork or perception. Just correlates that suggest a pretty strong relationship between arming citizens to protect their rights and properties and the gun violence seen in Switzerland. Unarming private citizens only leaves guns in the hands of criminals and the government (legal criminals). Free society and market with empowering the individual is the only way to combat these horrific events.

In every area of civilized societies, individuals and groups are prevented by laws from wielding asymmetrical power over others - the ability of one person to exercise excessive power of any kind over any number of others. For example, think of the American constitutional checks and balances. Modern guns give their bearers just such asymmetrical power - the unchecked ability to kill or injure dozens of people in very short order - and that's why they need to be controlled.

Those quoting their Second Amendment rights might reflect on the difference between what was originally intended, i.e. keeping a single-shot muzzle-loader at home for use, when called upon, in the militia and what is possible today, the sad and horrible results of which we see with frightening regularity in the USA these days.

"...an armed policeman is more, not less, likely to be hurt when facing an armed baddie."

By this reasoning, we could increase the survival rate of soldiers by taking away their guns before sending them into battle. Are you seriously proposing that if you were involved in a duel where your opponent had a pistol and you had no weapon at all, that you would emerge the victor? Perhaps you intended this assertion to be humorous, and I'm simply missing the subtlety.

No - firstly I am just quoting facts. But I suspect that the issue is precisely 'getting into a duel'. Sensible policemen don't - bystanders get hurt and so do policemen. This is not Hollywood! By and large policing succeeds not because the police shoot better but because there are more of them and the population sides with the police (mostly).

We cant get rid of guns this generation, but we can lock them up, such if a mugger would face long can only if a unlocked gun was on him. he wouldn't want to risk being shot without protection but just like seat belts, after an hour of looking sideways to see a police officer was coming one would fasten them in order to relax.

It's not really a matter of law; Britain had very lax gun laws before the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres in the 1990s, but hardly anyone owned guns, because no-one wanted to. Americans want, in significant numbers, to own guns, so they do.